@never_released said:Apple T8020 and T8027 are respectively the A12 and A12X.
Apple Vortex CPU codename.
The Twitter user who gave details* on the core configuration of the A11 before its release has now provided information on the A12 generation.
* secondary sources linked because old tweets were deleted
C’mon, the conference is in less than 24h!Hmm, think they'd introduce new iPads this week at WWDC with the A12 variant?
Or wait for iPhone to debut A12?
Nobody edits thousands of RAW files anywhere. Batch processing is where it’s at in those volumes. I don’t use my iPad as my primary editing station either, iMac here as well for that. But for doing stuff away from home, Affinity Photo and the iPad Pro is quite capable of fixing up some files for evaluation (and finishing, if I required it). I anticipate that world+dog will move to 8k video sometime before the 2020 tokyo olympics, and photo file sizes will follow suit. IPads are nice platforms (if not ideal, although file handling is said to keep progressing) for the tasks. With even the new mid-end Mali V76 GPU supporting 8k video encoding and decoding, upcoming Apple products are bound to do the same. Maybe the A12(x)?I have Lightroom mobile on my iPad Pro.
I even have a camera connector so on a recent trip, I used it to load my RAW files from my DSLR.
But I used it only for storage, had no desire whatsoever to edit photos on an iPad. I may try it some day but I'm paying $120 a year for Adobe CC subscription so I'm going to use it on my iMac, with the bigger screen and trackpad for pointer control. I don't do much with masks but I still want that pointer rather than tapping parts of an image to edit it.
The import of a couple of hundred RAW files took a long time and I can't imagine how long it would take to stitch say a dozen images for a panorama. Lightroom will peg my CPU during import, applying presets and stitching. I don't have the fastest CPU or GPU that I could have gotten on the 5K iMac but I loaded up the RAM and I can't imagine how much longer similar operations will take on the iPad, even with the fastest SOCs.
I use Lightroom Mobile mainly to view collections (or subsets) of my photos that I've sync'd from my desktop.
Even if there was processing power parity, I doubt I'd edit thousands of RAW files on an iPad.
The overall scores are somewhat disappointing if true, especially with the multi-core score, unless
SoC A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12
Geekbench 3 ST 707 1394 1607 2532
Increase — 97% 15% 58%
Geekbench 4 ST 754 1265 1411 2397 3437 4219 4673
Increase — 68% 12% 70% 43% 23% 11%
Clock (MHz) 1300 1300 1400 1849 2340 2390 2490
Increase — 0% 8% 32% 27% 2% 4%
GB3 ST / clock 0.54 1.07 1.15 1.37
Increase — 97% 7% 19%
GB4 ST / clock 0.58 0.97 1.01 1.30 1.47 1.77 1.88
Increase — 68% 4% 29% 13% 20% 6%The overall scores are somewhat disappointing if true, especially with the multi-core score, unless
That being said, we've seen this level of improvement before with the A7 → A8. The difference this time is that the A11 itself had a small performance increase over the A10, while the A7 was a massive improvement over the A6.
- the A12 focuses heavily on low power (especially given the iPhone shutdown and throttling controversy) and
- the A12X has much higher clock speeds (similar to the A9 and A9X).
(The A6 through A11 numbers are from the Geekbench website and archive, and the A12 number is from the claimed leak. For multiple products using the same chip, I used the highest iPhone value.)Code:SoC A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 Geekbench 3 ST 707 1394 1607 2532 Increase — 97% 15% 58% Geekbench 4 ST 754 1265 1411 2397 3437 4219 4673 Increase — 68% 12% 70% 43% 23% 11% Clock (MHz) 1300 1300 1400 1849 2340 2390 2490 Increase — 0% 8% 32% 27% 2% 4% GB3 ST / clock 0.54 1.07 1.15 1.37 Increase — 97% 7% 19% GB4 ST / clock 0.58 0.97 1.01 1.30 1.47 1.77 1.88 Increase — 68% 4% 29% 13% 20% 6%
They've thrown sustained performance out of the window in the recent generations. The small improvements could very well be due to power constraints.A8 was focused on sustained performance and not throttling just as everyone was beginning to optimize to the benchmarks. I believe that has been their philosophy from A8, so a similar focus on efficiency theoretically isn’t needed.
That would be even more concerning. These results of reflective of a direct copy of architecture, minus cache increase, and a meager 4% clock bump. Doesn’t feel like a ‘Plan A’ design.They've thrown sustained performance out of the window in the recent generations. The small improvements could very well be due to power constraints.
Seems like a reasonable hypothesis. If so, lets hope sustained performance is correspondingly higher and/or battery life longer. Glass isn’t a wonderful material when it comes to dissipating heat but I haven’t seen A11 SoC temps measured. Any problems with heat dissipation would be best dealt with by simply reducing heat generation from the SoC.They've thrown sustained performance out of the window in the recent generations. The small improvements could very well be due to power constraints.
Elsewhere in the discussion, Andrei F notes that the cache numbers that Geekbench displays may not be accurate.Maynard Handley said:Perhaps, but I'd suggest another possibility -- this is basically EXACTLY the same CPU as an A11, only "hardened". They took the A11 design, added whatever was believed necessary to protect against every speculation attack they could imagine (presumably things like tagging various structure field by PID or protection level) and the "real" A12 was delayed for a year to get the same treatment. […]
Difficult to say without knowing how long the design cycles are. The general idea, that hardening the cores against malicious code will have a price in performance, seems sound.Do you folks think this speculation at Real World Tech forums is reasonable?
Elsewhere in the discussion, Andrei F notes that the cache numbers that Geekbench displays may not be accurate.