While we have seen images of Apple's A6 processor die, large parts of the core design as well as the interaction of the integrated components remain speculation.
The latest indicator is the most recent release of the Microprocessor Report, in which Linley Gwennap argues that several hundred million dollars of investment are paying off for Apple. The latest A6 processor design is recognized as unique and as a design "that has never been seen before." That indicates a design that is specifically tailored to the needs of the iPhone and the iPad, which makes economic sense at the scale of current iPhone and iPad shipments.
Gwennap notes "that the iPhone 5 could generate $20 billion in revenue" in the Christmas season alone. "So that half a billion dollars [of investment] could be money well spent," he said.
However, Apple appears to be now reaping the fruits of its gutsy move to develop its own microprocessor with the help of acquired companies such as PA Semi in 2008 and Intrinsity in 2010. There was the notion that Apple could never compete with the processor design resources by companies such as Samsung or Intel, but it seems that the company is changing opinions.
I would like to see some actual benchmarks, instead of a photo of the die.
It's a stretch to say consoles can play games with performance close to computer games... a very big stretch. Computers have such a huge range when it comes to performance so if you mean that consoles comes close to low end computers in regards to gaming, then you're accurate. But mid to higher end PCs will knock the socks off a console.
2 sides of the same coin.
I would like to see some actual benchmarks, instead of a photo of the die.
But still, I could definitely see how much innovation has been created from this, and all that amazing manure iSheep eat & nom on all day.
Here you go: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/the-iphone-5-review
You do realize the dual-core A6 outperforms some quad-cores like the Nvidia Tegra 3 and Snapdragon S4, which are quad core chips, right?
More cores does not mean it's better. A better architecture or design makes the difference. In Apple's case with the A6, they laid it out by hand instead of the usual automated tools and it gave significant performance boosts.
2 sides of the same coin.
It's a stretch to say consoles can play games with performance close to computer games... a very big stretch. Computers have such a huge range when it comes to performance so if you mean that consoles comes close to low end computers in regards to gaming, then you're accurate. But mid to higher end PCs will knock the socks off a console.
Of course it's fast on such a puny little screen, sigh..... All that performance that you can't actually see. lol
I'll take the slightly slower(unnoticable in real world) phone with larger screen thanks, At least it will be of use!
I thought Tom's was a site where people discussed hardware like CPU's? All of a sudden Apple has the best mobile SoC and suddenly everyone at Tom's has forgotten everything they supposedly learned over the years watching AMD and Intel battle.
b..but apple is bad!! This is seriously the argument everyone on this site uses.
His point was that it runs better then the same spec hardware in a computer environment. Put console parts into a computer and you'll get way worse looking games then on the console.
Open article, disappointment.
A6 (and their chip.design in general) is actually one of the few praise-worthy things about Apple, especially because they can optimize both the hw and sw to work together to increase efficiency. While A6 outperforms Tegra3 in lightly threaded applications ( S4 Plus does too ), I've seen no evidence of it beating S4 Pro in highly threaded applications (/multitasking), at least the Exynos chip in the int. GS3 version beats A6 in usual benchamarks ( and supposedly, battery life ).
Kudos to Apple for designing something other than a thin case with rounded corners.