iMacmatician
Regular
What are these signals from TSMC?The SoC is obviously a beast, but I'd assume from signals from TSMC that it is a 16nm design, so if they have achieved an overall 30% single thread performance increase (which the slide doesn't claim, but nor can 30% refer to multi threaded benchmark performance), it would have to involve blood magic.
There's a thread here about it.Also, Metal 2 is of B3D interest, but maybe not for this thread?
I know, but TSMC has made statements regarding shipping product and projected revenues that could only barely (if at all) fit with iPad Pros being available in Apple volumes right now. If the A10x was fabbed on TSMC 10nm, that would be worthy of a headline or two, particularly in the circles that is more connected to supply chain as opposed to consumers.
It would seem reasonable to broadly assume so. The larger iPad still has room for a larger battery (and still need to push around more pixels), so as long as battery times are quoted as similar, I think it's reasonable to assume that the larger iPad takes advantage of it's larger battery and larger power dissipating enclosure to increase max clocks a bit over its smaller sibling. We'll know soon enough, you can order one right now and benchmark it for us!I wonder if the A10X performance improvements over the A9X will be similar at each iPad Pro form factor. The current 12.9" model is still far and away the most powerful device in its class.
Before the iPad Pro update, I thought that was likely to happen, but it turns out that the two A10X's have the same performance according to Apple's numbers.I wonder if the A10X performance improvements over the A9X will be similar at each iPad Pro form factor. The current 12.9" model is still far and away the most powerful device in its class.
12.9-inch iPad Pro 10.5-inch iPad Pro
Compared to A8: Compared to A8:
CPU: 2.5x faster CPU: 2.5x faster
Graphics: 4.3x faster Graphics: 4.3x faster
12.9-inch iPad Pro 9.7-inch iPad Pro
Compared to A8: Compared to A8:
CPU: 1.9x faster CPU: 1.85x faster
Graphics: 3.1x faster Graphics: 2.7x faster
Before the iPad Pro update, I thought that was likely to happen, but it turns out that the two A10X's have the same performance according to Apple's numbers.
From the iPad comparison page:
Code:12.9-inch iPad Pro 10.5-inch iPad Pro Compared to A8: Compared to A8: CPU: 2.5x faster CPU: 2.5x faster Graphics: 4.3x faster Graphics: 4.3x faster
This wasn't the case with the previous 12.9" and 9.7" iPad Pros.
Code:12.9-inch iPad Pro 9.7-inch iPad Pro Compared to A8: Compared to A8: CPU: 1.9x faster CPU: 1.85x faster Graphics: 3.1x faster Graphics: 2.7x faster
That being said, I don't know how Apple's measuring CPU and GPU performance so these numbers may not tell the whole story.
According to Serenity Caldwell, iMore managing editor, both of the iPad Pros have 4 GB RAM.Also with all the iOS 11 iPad-specific features, maybe they embed more RAM?
Of course they won't scale linearly if the memory and caches changed that much. Some tests are more memory heavy than others.Subtest scores do not scale linearly (would indicate fake entry).
Yes. The more intriguing cases are where performance has regressed. I'd be wary of drawing too detailed conclusions from a single benchmark run under undisclosed circumstances though. We have no idea what that system may or may not have been doing in parallel during the run.Of course they won't scale linearly if the memory and caches changed that much. Some tests are more memory heavy than others.
Geekbench scores
I don't know which size the model number refers to.
Windows on arm was here and failed, it was Windows RT. Yes, not quite exactly the same, but no one liked having similiar yet different applications to x86 Windows. If anyone is able to switch to ARM it must have either every application built on a framework VM (like .Net CLI) or be purely Interpreted executable layer or have capabilities of translating x86 to ARM on the fly.
Windows on arm was here and failed, it was Windows RT. Yes, not quite exactly the same, but no one liked having similiar yet different applications to x86 Windows. If anyone is able to switch to ARM it must have either every application built on a framework VM (like .Net CLI) or be purely Interpreted executable layer or have capabilities of translating x86 to ARM on the fly.
yes Intel will be shitting themselves, 'literally'. As I have written here before, It is inevitable that Apple will be moving to ARM for their laptops, this fanless CPU is within spiting distance of the top of the line intel macbook pro 'fan cooled' cpu's.That must be becoming very favorably compared to the Kaby lake mobile Intel CPUs.
It must be very tempting for Apple to switch to ARM on its laptops at some point.