Apple reportedy considering six core A10 CPU for iPhone 7

[asim1999]

This is great news. Considering this is apple we are talking about, they always beat competitors in single core performance; imagine what six cores would do in an iPhone compared to the other chips

 

 

The chips that power the Apple iPhone have always been a point of interest, for they might seem puny on paper in comparison with, say, Qualcomm and MediaTek's hi-end silicon, yet they produce rivaling performance in benchmarks. Take, for example, the Apple A9 ticking inside the iPhone 6S and 6s Plus. Following the September 9 Apple event, we've gotten to know that the chip, which scored some of the highest results pulled off by an ARM-based processor, comes with just two 64-bit CPU cores, clocked to a maximum of 1.8GHz each. 

 

Meanwhile, Qualcomm's hi-end Snapdragon 810 and 808 chips have eight and six cores each. Two cores may not sound very impressive, but the A9 does run iOS 9 like it was always meant to do that, right?

Turning our attention to the latest rumors, we heard something that sounds downright controversial! Originating from a source that's been credible with hi-end chipset data in the past, the rumor is that Apple will increase the A10 CPU's core count to a whopping, by conservative Cupertino CPU design standards, six cores. Reportedly, Apple expects to step up multithreading performance with this decision. 

In a less puzzling move, though, Samsung and TSMC's 14nm or even 10nm fabrication processes could be employed for producing the chipset. Even Intel gets a mention as a possible production partner, but that would be a huge first for both companies, so we're not particularly invested in this opportunity.

In a hypothetical scenario, a thoroughly optimized six-core ARM chip could let Apple further increase the battery life of iOS devices by coming up with a more power-efficient design. The ninth instalment of iOS already saw the implementation of a power saving mode, along with the usual performance optimizations.

Ironically enough, while Apple is rumored to increase its CPU's core count, Android chipmaker Qualcomm is actually reducing the number of cores to four for its upcoming flagship processor, the Snapdragon 820. Interim, MediaTek is experimenting with a ten-core setup for its upcoming Helio X20 architecture. The chipmaking industry seems to be in an experimental mood, overall. We remember a time when just one core was enough for everybody, but there, that's technological progress for you!

Read more at http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-reportedly-considering-six-core-CPU-design-for-next-years-A10-SoC_id73944#2EDTy33wbagmbx7Q.99

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-reportedly-considering-six-core-CPU-design-for-next-years-A10-SoC_id73944

[Aytex]

I don't like apple but I do like AMD if they do this is great news for AMD's economy!

[babadoctor]

i do not approve

amd + apple = 0 ÷ 0

apple is known for their expensive high quallity shit

amd is known for their inexpensive and powerful stuff

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE

also the battery is probs gonna be shit

[DildorTheDecent]

6 cores just for snapchat, WhatsApp and selfies? 

 

wat.

[babadoctor]

6 cores just for snapchat, WhatsApp and selfies? 

 

wat.

lol

i agree

you dont NEED 6 CORES FOR SNAPCHAT

[STRMfrmXMN]

6 cores just for snapchat, WhatsApp and selfies? 

 

wat.

And then fandroids will complain that iPhones don't have good enough specs.

[Aytex]

6 cores just for snapchat, WhatsApp and selfies? 

 

wat.

Didn't intel/Asus already give us reasons why we don't need a 6+ core processors in our phones (zenfone)

[asim1999]

i do not approve

amd + apple = 0 ÷ 0

apple is known for their expensive high quallity shit

amd is known for their inexpensive and powerful stuff

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE

also the battery is probs gonna be shit

The battery always has been. Its ironic how Qualcomm is doing an Apple (fewer cores in the 820) and Apple is doing a Qualcomm (more cores, more powah!) 

[RedRound2]

I guess this chip may be great for the iPad Pro and potentially the MacBook 2016

[Shakaza]

-snippity-

 

 

-snip-

Um, I hate to rain on your parade, but these aren't AMD chips. Apple already has A9 CPUs and is developing A10 ones. There is no connection to AMD whatsoever, and the name is purely coincidental. I feel like this is going to cause a lot of confusion...

[rtpb5642]

I don't like apple but I do like AMD if they do this is great news for AMD's economy!

Its not AMD its A10 as in Apple 10.... not AMD APU

[Bogica]

Um, I hate to rain on your parade, but these aren't AMD chips. Apple already has A9 CPUs and is developing A10 ones. There is no connection to AMD whatsoever, and the name is purely coincidental. I feel like this is going to cause a lot of confusion...

I was just wondering why was everyone mentioning AMD when I could not find them anywhere in the text.

A10 is an Apple SOC, it's just the numerical order, the latest one is A9, so the next one is A10 obviously.

I like 6 cores, if it's going to be like high power and low power cores. It would benefit to battery life, all they gotta do now is put a decent battery in an iPhone and done. Sub 2000mAh batteries are unacceptable.

[Aytex]

Its not AMD its A10 as in Apple 10.... not AMD APU

lol brainfart

[bogus]

Wtf is this topic: missinformation + AMD Hate + Apple Hate + Core Count Hate... Jesus... people point and shoot their rage even if logic is absent.

[captain cactus]

I doubt Apple will ever put more than 3 cores in a chip for their phones. For the iPads however, maybe. I bet some Qualcomm or Samsung people are shitting their pants right now because of the A9 benchmarks because those scores are impressive for a dual-core chip, not to mention that it smokes everything on single-core performance.

[othertomperson]

...were people seriously expecting an AMD x86 desktop APU in an iphone...? Like unironically that's a conclusion you reached?

[Alurit]

Didn't intel/Asus already give us reasons why we don't need a 6+ core processors in our phones (zenfone)

we don't need 6+ core intel x86-64 chips in phones, because they are more sophisticated then qualcomm ones and can change voltage and frequency to accommodate for tasks, but we do need more cores in cpus that can't do that, so there are more powerefficient but less powerful core to use when there is no need for much power to save battery life.

if other companies had better base clock boost management then we would not need 6,8,10 core mobile processors

[patrickjp93]

Won't happen. The A9 is still only 2 cores. At most they'll do 3 like with the A8X.

[Sauron]

If they do end up having 6 cores (which would be welcome after years of dual cores) it's most likely going to be with lower powered cores - power consumption is a factor. Or maybe they'll end up having the usual 2 "fast" cores and 4 power saving cores, or vice versa. Given the 810's early overheating problems I really doubt they'll be able to stuff the same or more power without running into similar issues.

[typographie]

Um, I hate to rain on your parade, but these aren't AMD chips. Apple already has A9 CPUs and is developing A10 ones. There is no connection to AMD whatsoever, and the name is purely coincidental. I feel like this is going to cause a lot of confusion...

 

Whoa, whoa… that was where people were getting AMD out of this? As I read through these comments I got more and more confused wtf these people were talking about.

[othertomperson]

If they do end up having 6 cores (which would be welcome after years of dual cores) it's most likely going to be with lower powered cores - power consumption is a factor. Or maybe they'll end up having the usual 2 "fast" cores and 4 power saving cores, or vice versa. Given the 810's early overheating problems I really doubt they'll be able to stuff the same or more power without running into similar issues.

 

It wouldn't be "welcome". It wouldn't be unwelcome either, you just wouldn't notice the difference. iPhones have never focussed on multitasking, they very much focus on single tasks at a time, which is the direction I would go if I were powering a processor and a couple of transmitters off of a battery.

 

It's like when people say that the iPhone needs more RAM. Does it? I don't think it does without a fundamental change of approach to the way the software works.

[Sauron]

It wouldn't be "welcome". It wouldn't be unwelcome either, you just wouldn't notice the difference. iPhones have never focussed on multitasking, they very much focus on single tasks at a time, which is the direction I would go if I were powering a processor and a couple of transmitters off of a battery.

 

It's like when people say that the iPhone needs more RAM. Does it? I don't think it does without a fundamental change of approach to the way the software works.

 

The thing is we're talking about a 750$ minimum device. SOMETHING has to be a selling point to have it make any sense at all, and it can't be facebook because a 150$ device will do it just as well. If nothing else at least games can make use of a multicore cpu if it's made available - not that I'd spend 750$ for the sake of playing good looking games on my phone. It's not so much a matter of, "it needs more ram", but rather, why are we asked to pay so much more than other devices with similar specs? If it actually had superios specs to lower end devices, I still wouldn't be interested but at least the higher price would be justified for those who do use the extra power.

[othertomperson]

The thing is we're talking about a 750$ minimum device. SOMETHING has to be a selling point to have it make any sense at all, and it can't be facebook because a 150$ device will do it just as well. If nothing else at least games can make use of a multicore cpu if it's made available - not that I'd spend 750$ for the sake of playing good looking games on my phone. It's not so much a matter of, "it needs more ram", but rather, why are we asked to pay so much more than other devices with similar specs? If it actually had superios specs to lower end devices, I still wouldn't be interested but at least the higher price would be justified for those who do use the extra power.

 

But it's the cheapest flagship smartphone that's not OnePlus. You're not being asked to pay "so much more" than most equivalents. The fact that it's cheaper than Samsung or HTC, allows you to use your PC as a hub instead of the cloud, can sync flawlessly with Outlook without having to rely on online services or business services like Microsoft Exchange Server and does all of this out of the box without the need for additional or third party apps, tweaks and hacks is already a selling point.

 

My attitude to this is the same as it was when it came to the 970's vram and ROPs. I don't care what the numbers are, I care what effect they have. I base my purchasing decisions from real world benchmarks and how the device actually functions. I don't care that the iPhone 6's screen resolution is lower than 1080p because at the distance I use it from there is little gain from having more pixels. I say this as someone who has a 4K monitor because he sits about a foot from it. I don't care that it doesn't have enough RAM for multitasking because it pretty much doesn't multitask. It offers an equivalent experience to its direct competitors at a similar price point, and that alone justifies the price point.

[patrick3027]

I don't believe it. Don't forget they use a tri-core in the iPad. It would make more sense to go from dual to tri-core than jumping to 6 cores.

[captain cactus]

I don't believe it. Don't forget they use a tri-core in the iPad. It would make more sense to go from dual to tri-core than jumping to 6 cores.

The A9X will be a quad-core. That makes the jump a lot smaller than you'd think. 

 

I see a 6-core chip being made for iPads, with the Pro being the obvious choice for such a chip. It'll have the -X marking though, not the regular A10 non-X.