MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jan 28, 10 - 10:51 am Comment from: HMCIV

An Intel and an AMD CEO just sat up somewhere.

Go Apple.

It's great to see them in the chip biz again.

"power-per-watt"??? I thought watts are how power is measured?

Jan 28, 10 - 10:58 am Comment from: HolyMackerel

Why is Apple down 3% and Intel down only 0.4%? Intel has the most to lose in lost NetBook Atom chip sales…

Jan 28, 10 - 11:02 am Comment from: MacArch

Jowl,

I think "Power" is being used to refer to the PROCESSING power-per-watt.

Apple's always claiming performance advantages for processors. Mostly it's just RDF.

When did they call it the A4? So when they cancel the in house chip project in the future for faster chips supplied by mainstream vendors it can be known as Another Aborted Apple Architecture?

Jan 28, 10 - 11:10 am Comment from: Jersey_Trader

jowi, I think that they are talking about the (computing) power-per-watt. These chips are more like the old PowerPC chips than the Intel chips. Apple bought that chip design company for their power efficient PowerPC design technology.

Jan 28, 10 - 11:15 am Comment from: DogGone

@iSee
Assuming the iPad is successful then I'm sure Apple will get their money back from the chip design.
They already had a relationship in PA Semi before they bought the company, so they have been planning this for a long time.

One thing to realize about Apple now. They plan very carefully and well. If they are going to go into a business then they do it properly.

If you saw the demos in yesterdays presentation you would have to admit the iPad was very responsive.

Unlike the iPod/iPhone, this is a much larger form factor, so you'll see more cores and greater speed in future versions. No cramming necessary. What I am interested in is seeing it gutted and whether or not there is an empty place where the iSight will fit, like the iPod Touch. Then, the question of landscape or vertical placement?

This is just version one to get the ball rolling...imagine 2ghz, GPS, iSight, etc...another version down the road. That combined with AT&T;getting their bandwidth ducks in a row. Bandwidth is a good problem for them to have if they can add layers quickly.

Jan 28, 10 - 11:54 am Comment from: myname

I want my Powerbook A5

Poor, deluded iSee!

Each and every time Apple has claimed a "performance advantage" for processors used, at the time the claims were made, they were true.

Unfortunately, both for Apple (and your oh-so-lame argument) none of your favoured "mainstream vendors" (IBM? Motorola? Niche? You're poorly educated, if not an outright dunce) failed to keep pace with the times.

My, how it sucks to be iSee!

Jan 28, 10 - 12:11 pm Comment from: Ray

Well....this is another version 1.0 product from Apple. The screen is way too small for the form factor. It is mostly bezel on the top of that device...like the first mac was mostly bezel. How about a USB port? Once again, the early whiners need to buy lots of these so, I can buy my version 2.0 of this sooner. I would like to thank the early whiners of the iPhone 1.0....my iPhone 3GS works great.

just my $0.02

My iPhone 2.5 G worked great.

Apple is responsible for the design of the A4 chip. I wonder who manufactures it? Intel??

I can't wait to see the chip they're going to be putting into the iPhone 4G...


*drool*

Jan 28, 10 - 12:36 pm Comment from: It's About Time

Use of the iPad will be quite different than either the phone or computer. This device is for people on the go who require larger screen size while desiring portability. Also, will prove ideal for those in school.

This is the perfect device for traveling on airplanes or trains. Its long battery life, especially playing video, is a huge plus. And again, portability is a +++.

I suspect multi-tasking will appear within 1 - 1 1/2 years, along with iSight capability. Really not a camera platform.

Very smart of Apple to synch it through iTunes, as it makes it easy for consumers using PC's to embrace it.

Also, no telling what the development community will produce, but if the iPhone/Touch market is any indication, this device is going to be another game changer.

How does this compare to Apple's other mobile devices in power usage?

The iPad's battery is 25 Watt Hours, and rated at 10hours usage, translates to 2.5watts an hour.

The MBA is 40 Watt Hours and rated for 5 hours usage,
translating to 8.0watts an hour.

A 13" MBP is 60 Watt Hours, and rated at 7 hours usage, translating to 8.6watts an hour.

The 15" MBP is 73 Watt Hours and rated for 7 hours, translating to 10.4watts an hour.

The 17" MBP is 95 Watt Hours and rated for 8 hours,
translating to 11.9watts an hour.

Anyone know the specs on iPod touches or the iPhone?

It seems like the iPhone 3GS is rated for 10 hours of video usage, and has a battery in the 1200mAh range at 3.7 volts. How do milliAmps relate to watts? So, 1200mAh is 1.2Amphours times 3.7 volts equals 4.4 Watthours, divided by 10 hours leaves 0.44watts an hour.

So, the iPad is about 5x as power hungry as an iPhone 3GS as far as I can tell.

Jan 28, 10 - 01:48 pm Comment from: almux

The overall main news around Apple: that first chip... And futur Mac will have one in every machine... yet besides an Intel. A matter of Mac NOT being a PC,,, still running all OSs around the world.

Jan 28, 10 - 03:08 pm Comment from: PhxDoc

@Ray

I'm tired of people complaining about how large the bezel is on the iPad. It is large on purpose. It is a touch-screen device and when you hold it, you finger have to wrap around it. You can't have the screen more toward the edge or you would accidentally touch the touch sensor and have spurious input. I've been using tabletPCs for the past 7 years and can't wait to dump these for an iPad.

dual core or quad core? rumor had it that the "largest mobile devices company" was working on a quad-core - could that be apple and does A4 stand for quad core?

Tear in my eye. Making THERE OWN chip. Cool! Brings back memories of BYTE MAG, and the custom graphics chipset in the Amiga. While the first mac may have been great, I think the Amiga kicked it's ass. (because of the custom chip set).
I hope this is just the begining, and Apple makes All it's OWN CHIPS !
It's about time ONE chip, had the graphics on it. Now my mac....
I want to see the i-mac have an Apple custom chip ! Go Apple.
Just keep kick'n ass.

Thanks for the breakdown on power usage. I love it when people actually use the numbers instead of mindless babble when explaining power usage etc.

The larger screens of everything you mention play a very large role in power consumption compared to the iPhone's tiny screen. And we must remember that by far the largest use of screen power is that which powers the backlighting. LCDs take almost no power to operate, whereas the backlighting is proportionate to the area it must light to a very large degree. LEDs are of course much more efficient than CCFLs.

So regardless of what processor is used in the iPhone, its smaller screen area will alway take less power to light than a large display.

"Each and every time Apple has claimed a "performance advantage" for processors used, at the time the claims were made, they were true."

Poor Moo. Apple were claiming PowerPC was faster than Intel right up until the day they ditched PowerPC and started telling you Intel was faster.

Anyway, once these things end up in the hands of developers we'll see some real benchmarks.

In the presentation you could watch and wait while it filled in the screen as it was scrolled. It looked SLOOOOOOOOOOW.

RE: iSee: The PowerPC was faster than Intel. It also ate too much power and would never go into an Apple laptop. That is why there never was a G5 laptop. We were BEGGING for a G5 laptop, but it never came. Eventually, the Intel Macbooks arrived. That is because Intel was increasing speed while decreasing power usage. PowerPC chips were just going the wrong way for computers and the right way for game consoles. A slower PPC chip could match a faster Intel chip, taking the same time to perform the tasks at hand. That is why 2.4GHz PPC was faster than 3GHz Intel. If you are never going to get a 2.4GHz PPC into a laptop without crazy liquid cooling, why stay with them, especially when they keep missing deadlines?

Jan 30, 10 - 12:13 am Comment from: dd

It would be cool if Apple could incorporate the Ax chips along with the Intel chips in their computers.

The benefits would be interesting.
1) Extra speed boosts for CPU-intensive tasks, with GC using the supplemental chip when necessary .
2) If they did decide to license OS X to specific vendors, the specific vendors would NOT get the Ax chip, thus always giving the performance win to Apple's hardware.

I don't know if it could even be done, but still, I like that Apple is in the CPU business again.

"The PowerPC was faster than Intel"

Only in the mind of Steve Jobs and transitively Apple Fanboys.

"2) If they did decide to license OS X to specific vendors, the specific vendors would NOT get the Ax chip, thus always giving the performance win to Apple's hardware."

Assuming it's actually any faster than anyone else's SOC Arm implementation.

The PowerPC debacle showed the opposite to be true: People purchasing off the shelf chips were better off than Apple using the fruits of it's Motorola/IBM collaboration.

Even Steve finally couldn't say "PowerPC is faster" without the most hardcore fanboy in the room, in their heart, knowing it was a lie..