A12X Bionic Processor Debuts in New iPad Pros

[AndrewFreedman]

At an event today in Brooklyn, Apple took the wraps after its A12X processor, which will be in its new iPad Pro.

A12X Bionic Processor Debuts in New iPad Pros : Read more

 

[jeremyj_83]

If the CPU is so great why are they still using Intel CPUs in their Mac Mini? Might it be that they know that once a full blown OS, not iOS, is on it the performance isn't what they state?

 

[Peter Martin]

impressive....

 

[hannibal]

Actually Apple is planning to move to use its own cpu in computers. It just take some time to completely rewrite the os and programs so that They support A12x or what ever prosessor Apple is going to use in their laptops.
So it only a matter of time and rewriting all the existing code.

 

[JTWrenn]

Calling it Fusion is a bit of a kick in the nuts to AMD there.

 

[Deleted member 1353997]

If the CPU is so great why are they still using Intel CPUs in their Mac Mini? Might it be that they know that once a full blown OS, not iOS, is on it the performance isn't what they state?

No, this has nothing to do with performance. It has to do with backwards compatibility.

Intel CPUs use the x86 architecture, while the A12X is ARM-based.
ARM is a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) architecture, while x86 is CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer). They're fundamentally different.

If Apple switched from Intel to the A12X, they'd have to rewrite macOS for ARM, and all app developers would have to recompile, retest, and rerelease their apps too. Also, people might no longer be able to run Windows on their Mac. Alternatively, they'd have to provide a x86->ARM compiler to make sure old apps can still run, though the performance would definitely suffer from that.

Considering Apple already *did* rewrite Mac OSX once, when they transitioned from PowerPC to Intel CPUs, they probably don't want to do it again.

 

[richardvday]

If they think they can match or even exceed the performance per watt of intels cpus they probably will. Plus they love to control everything in their supply line. They have been spending a lot to make their cpus better so i would say the fact that they rewrote their os once means they are probably willing to do it again if the rewards seem worthwhile

 

[mustafa.technet]

they can make CPUs look great. I doubt they are faster than intel's latest. I seriously doubt it.. It is clear their benchmark scores are not run by CPUs. It is easy then. And Not general everywhere everyday.
I assume their power hungry cores are above 25W, even then, the CPUs aren't MUCH Faster as they need to scale. I know 7nm is helping, BUT believe, 7nms are not that great...

Thanks!

 

[bit_user]

The graphics, the company said, are 1,000 times faster.

This can't be literally true. Only in some extreme corner case, maybe.

 

[bit_user]

If the CPU is so great why are they still using Intel CPUs in their Mac Mini? Might it be that they know that once a full blown OS, not iOS, is on it the performance isn't what they state?

No, this has nothing to do with performance. It has to do with backwards compatibility.

Intel CPUs use the x86 architecture, while the A12X is ARM-based.

...

If Apple switched from Intel to the A12X, they'd have to rewrite macOS for ARM, and all app developers would have to recompile, retest, and rerelease their apps too.

Have you heard of emulators and JIT compilers/translators? Even back when Macs were 68k-based, you could get a PC emulator to run DOS programs on them. And when they switched from 68k to PPC, and then from PPC to x86, I know there was a way to run legacy Mac apps.

Also, people might no longer be able to run Windows on their Mac.

I'm sure that's the least of Apple's concerns...

Considering Apple already *did* rewrite Mac OSX once, when they transitioned from PowerPC to Intel CPUs, they probably don't want to do it again.

You have no idea...

Not only did Apple change the Mac's CPU ISA twice, but they effectively did it again, after buying NeXT Computer. Next still had 68k-based hardware, even after Apple was already on PPC. So, that means NeXT had to port their kernel to PPC, in order to use it as the basis for Mac OS X.

Apple no doubt has tons of code that already cross compiles between ARM and x86. I actually don't think it would be a terribly big deal for them to switch. They're probably just waiting until they can offer a truly competitive desktop solution, so they don't have half of their computers still on x86.

And BTW, do you have any idea how many CPU architectures Linux supports? Simply supporting a new CPU ISA doesn't mean you have to rewrite your entire OS, assuming it was properly designed from the outset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux-supported_computer_architectures

While Mac OS X isn't Linux, it is BSD-based (a distant relative).

 

[emeralds1000000]

Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip .. or maybe just make the next Apple TV a console with such good GPU. Just add a controller to the mix and make deals with third party devs.

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.

 

[apone]

So hardware and performance numbers are suddenly talking points for Apple? Gosh, where have I seen that before...

 

[jimmysmitty]

Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip .. or maybe just make the next Apple TV a console with such good GPU. Just add a controller to the mix and make deals with third party devs.

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.

$199 for a "Premium" console with a controller from Apple? Have you not looked at their pricing for other products?

Apple doesn't do cheap or competitive.

 

[bit_user]

Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip ..

Would you believe Apple already tried this, once?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Bandai_Pippin

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.

How are they going to take the guts of a $800+ tablet and sell it for $200? How much cost do you think the screen and battery add?

Not to mention what Jimmy said about this being Apple... If competitive consoles were selling for $400, you know Apple would launch at like $650. And people would still buy it.

 

[shpankey]

Quote:
:
EMERALDS1000000 13 hours ago
Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip .. or maybe just make the next Apple TV a console with such good GPU. Just add a controller to the mix and make deals with third party devs.

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.:

Holy waste dude, I seriously love your idea!

 

[emeralds1000000]

Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip .. or maybe just make the next Apple TV a console with such good GPU. Just add a controller to the mix and make deals with third party devs.

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.

$199 for a "Premium" console with a controller from Apple? Have you not looked at their pricing for other products?

Apple doesn't do cheap or competitive.

Well their Apple TV is $150 , it is possible to sell it for $199 with a controller and the new chip ... lets just hope.

 

[emeralds1000000]

Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip ..

Would you believe Apple already tried this, once?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Bandai_Pippin

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.

How are they going to take the guts of a $800+ tablet and sell it for $200? How much cost do you think the screen and battery add?

Not to mention what Jimmy said about this being Apple... If competitive consoles were selling for $400, you know Apple would launch at like $650. And people would still buy it.

Apple TV is only $150 .. you dont need any tablet component for the console , no screen , no speakers , no camera , Just the SOC and storage and controller.. I did not say make it a Tablet Console.

actually the next Apple TV can be made a console with this SOC , and can be easily sold for $199 if Apple wanted.

 

[bit_user]

Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip ..

Would you believe Apple already tried this, once?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Bandai_Pippin

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.

How are they going to take the guts of a $800+ tablet and sell it for $200? How much cost do you think the screen and battery add?

Not to mention what Jimmy said about this being Apple... If competitive consoles were selling for $400, you know Apple would launch at like $650. And people would still buy it.

Apple TV is only $150 .. you dont need any tablet component for the console , no screen , no speakers , no camera , Just the SOC and storage and controller.. I did not say make it a Tablet Console.

actually the next Apple TV can be made a console with this SOC , and can be easily sold for $199 if Apple wanted.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what drives pricing of electronics. It might all seem artificial to you, but there are real costs associated with different system design aspects, and a big SoC, made on the latest process node is one of them. Memory is another.

If you search around, you can find cost analysis of various consoles, tablets, phones, GPUs, etc.

Update:
This teardown includes a detailed cost estimate of the iPhone XS, which includes the A12 (not the A12X):
http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-xs-teardown/

If you just add the applications processor and memory, it adds $162.50. The parts it would replace probably cost a small fraction of that. When you adjust for the larger size of the A12X and add in all the markups and additional costs that are incurred along the way, you probably end up with something having a retail price around $450 (just a very rough guess).

That would put it in the same price range as XBox One X and PS4, yet it has much less RAM and its GPU is much weaker. They compared its GPU to a XBox One S, but the GPU in the X is more than 3x as powerful (the PS4, a bit less).

 

[emeralds1000000]

Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip ..

Would you believe Apple already tried this, once?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Bandai_Pippin

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.

How are they going to take the guts of a $800+ tablet and sell it for $200? How much cost do you think the screen and battery add?

Not to mention what Jimmy said about this being Apple... If competitive consoles were selling for $400, you know Apple would launch at like $650. And people would still buy it.

Apple TV is only $150 .. you dont need any tablet component for the console , no screen , no speakers , no camera , Just the SOC and storage and controller.. I did not say make it a Tablet Console.

actually the next Apple TV can be made a console with this SOC , and can be easily sold for $199 if Apple wanted.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what drives pricing of electronics. It might all seem artificial to you, but there are real costs associated with different system design aspects, and a big SoC, made on the latest process node is one of them. Memory is another.

If you search around, you can find cost analysis of various consoles, tablets, phones, GPUs, etc.

Update:
This teardown includes a detailed cost estimate of the iPhone XS, which includes the A12 (not the A12X):
http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-xs-teardown/

If you just add the applications processor and memory, it adds $162.50. The parts it would replace probably cost a small fraction of that. When you adjust for the larger size of the A12X and add in all the markups and additional costs that are incurred along the way, you probably end up with something having a retail price around $450 (just a very rough guess).

That would put it in the same price range as XBox One X and PS4, yet it has much less RAM and its GPU is much weaker. They compared its GPU to a XBox One S, but the GPU in the X is more than 3x as powerful (the PS4, a bit less).

sorry but your $450 is fake. and based on nothing. The $150 Apple TV is simple plastic box with motherboard that has the SOC and memory and storage. and I dont see your $450 here at all. you just make things out of your mind.

as I said it will end up near $199 price point for the better Soc and a controller.

 

[bit_user]

Apple needs to make a Console using such powerful chip ..

Would you believe Apple already tried this, once?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Bandai_Pippin

and it can compete well if Priced $199 with Controller.

How are they going to take the guts of a $800+ tablet and sell it for $200? How much cost do you think the screen and battery add?

Not to mention what Jimmy said about this being Apple... If competitive consoles were selling for $400, you know Apple would launch at like $650. And people would still buy it.

Apple TV is only $150 .. you dont need any tablet component for the console , no screen , no speakers , no camera , Just the SOC and storage and controller.. I did not say make it a Tablet Console.

actually the next Apple TV can be made a console with this SOC , and can be easily sold for $199 if Apple wanted.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what drives pricing of electronics. It might all seem artificial to you, but there are real costs associated with different system design aspects, and a big SoC, made on the latest process node is one of them. Memory is another.

If you search around, you can find cost analysis of various consoles, tablets, phones, GPUs, etc.

Update:
This teardown includes a detailed cost estimate of the iPhone XS, which includes the A12 (not the A12X):
http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-xs-teardown/

If you just add the applications processor and memory, it adds $162.50. The parts it would replace probably cost a small fraction of that. When you adjust for the larger size of the A12X and add in all the markups and additional costs that are incurred along the way, you probably end up with something having a retail price around $450 (just a very rough guess).

That would put it in the same price range as XBox One X and PS4, yet it has much less RAM and its GPU is much weaker. They compared its GPU to a XBox One S, but the GPU in the X is more than 3x as powerful (the PS4, a bit less).

sorry but your $450 is fake. and based on nothing. The $150 Apple TV is simple plastic box with motherboard that has the SOC and memory and storage. and I dont see your $450 here at all. you just make things out of your mind.

as I said it will end up near $199 price point for the better Soc and a controller.

You're accusing me of that without any justification of your estimate? Did you even read the link I found for you? It seems to me yours is powered by little more than wishful thinking.

What you're talking about is replacing like a $10 SoC with a $72 unit (which is a parts cost - not the final differential in street price). Now, maybe the memory cost wouldn't translate exactly, since it seems to include flash, but the A12X does need much more and faster RAM than Apple TV. It also needs more storage. Both of those add cost, as well.

Part of the problem is that Apple didn't design the A12X as a console chip. So, they spent a lot of money on a new 7 nm process and a design which minimizes power consumption, while MS and Sony just went straight for cheap horsepower. So, that's roughly why it lands in the same price bracket as the other consoles, but with less GPU performance.