The Apple iPad - Anand's Analysis
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 27, 2010 5:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
The Hardware
Leading up to today’s announcement I desperately tried to figure out what hardware Apple would use for the iPad. I’ve been on a bit of an SoC kick as of late, so you can understand my fascination.
Apple acquired PA Semi back in 2008. Everyone assumed that it’s because Apple wants to start making its own SoCs for the iPhone. Well, the first results of that acquisition are in the iPad.
Apple didn’t devote much time to the SoC in the iPad other than to tell the world that it’s Apple’s own silicon and it runs at 1GHz. The SoC is called the A4. I’ve asked Apple for more details on it, but I’m not holding my breath for a response.
Given the fact that it runs the iPhone OS and nearly all iPhone apps, I’m guessing the A4 is ARMv7 based. It’s possible that Apple engineered its own architecture for the A4, but more likely that it simply took an existing ARM design and modified it to suit its needs.
If Apple wanted to save cost it would’ve gone with a Cortex A8 based processor, or if it wanted more performance it would be something more A9 like. I’m not ruling out a dual-core implementation, but given the entry level cost point I’m assuming that it’s not anything quite as fantastic.
The 1GHz operating frequency implies a 45nm manufacturing process if it’s indeed an A8 or A9-like core. If we look at Apple’s public video, it appears to render a page at Spin.com in roughly 2.7 seconds. My iPhone 3GS does the same in about 7 - 9 seconds, but it also appears to be loading a lot more content on the current Spin.com site. Even if we assume that the 600MHz Cortex A8 in the iPhone 3GS can render the same page in 5 seconds, the speedup is too big to be from a clock speed increase alone.
Based on this data alone (and the responsiveness of the UI from the videos) I’m going to say that there’s a good chance that the A4 is much closer to the A9 in terms of performance. If it’s not an A9 itself, it may be Apple’s own out-of-order design.
Then there’s battery life. Apple is claiming 10 hours of web browsing battery life, which is reasonable given the 25WHr battery, but over a month of standby power. I suspect that the ridiculous standby power is due to the fact that the 3G radio is completely shut off when the device is asleep, but even then that’s very good power consumption. If anything, Apple’s own engineering here was probably spent on making sure that the SoC’s power consumption was as low as possible. By comparison, even the best SoCs in a smartphone today can usually only offer 300 hours of standby power (12.5 days).
Apple’s battery life claims have been unusually reliable as of late, so I would say that we should expect 10 hours of useful battery life out of one of these things.
I’ve spent a lot of time talking about the CPU, but what about the GPU in the A4? Given that Apple is a shareholder in Imagination Technologies (9.5%), I’d say that it’s a pretty safe bet to assume there’s some sort of a PowerVR SGX core in here. Which core? There’s definitely the physical space to include something ridiculous, but I’m guessing it’s something relatively controlled - perhaps an SGX 535 or SGX 540 at the most.
A4 in the next iPhone?
I've been racking my brain over the past several months trying to figure out what Apple will use in the next iPhone. I figured it could be as simple as a 45nm Cortex A8 shrink, or as ridiculously sweet as a pair of Cortex A9s. With the iPad being based on Apple's own A4 SoC design, I'm guessing we'll see it (or a derivative) making an appearance in the 4th generation iPhone.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
155 Comments
View All Comments
ganeshts - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
I think Tegra 2 is a much better platform than the A4 ; Since a dual core processor is not claimed, I suspect it is a Cortex A8 pushed up to 1 GHz clock rate, and the GPU must be SGX 540 (which is what is being used to decode H264 I suspect). [[ All speculations with some hunches ]]By the way, no webcam / no HDMI output even with docks is downright disappointing. This thing is a joke when it comes to HD playback as you have duly noted. Not even L4.1 or High Profile is supported, No Blu-Ray M2TS or off-the-web MKV playback will be possible.
Feature wise, I think even Notion Ink's tablet is better than this. But, with Apple's marketing & fanboys, it is unpredictable..
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
I think unfortunately this isn't going to be the video playback device it was rumored to be. It'll be great for iTunes content, and for those people who don't mind doing some transcoding, but it lacks the copy and go flexibility that I was hoping for.This is the downside to companies like Apple. They work too closely with the content owners/providers, and thus play it safe with things like this.
But, it leaves room for others to innovate :)
Take care,
Anand
autoboy - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
It is such a disappointment for video consumption considering how nice the display appears to be. 16GB storage is downright pathetic if you ever wanted to play video. 64GB is only slightly better but there isn't a way to add a SD card to expand it. On a device this big intended for high res content, that is a huge misstep. Even 720p itunes video take considerable space. Then you don't have the HDMI port for when you get to your destination.I bought a iPod touch for video consumption, pandora, and audiobooks (i can't use an iphone) and I have been entirely disappointed with the screen quality. After seeing this iPad, I'm still waiting for my perfect video device.
It's not like Apple to leave this much room for others to innovate.
afkrotch - Friday, January 29, 2010 - link
Try the Archos 5 or 7. Might just fit your needs.OBLAMA2009 - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
this would be a revolutionary product if apple somehow jacked the wireless providers into providing 3g for say 10 a month. but without that nobody is going to choose this over a much better performing laptop. nokia invented the ipad a couple years ago except they called it the n800. it was a nice product but you dont see anyone walking around with them do you?Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
I don't believe the choice should be between an iPad or a laptop. Presumably iPad users will already have a fast PC of some sort, this would be an auxiliary device just as a smartphone is. The question is whether or not there's room for such a device, and to answer that we really need to see how this thing works in a day to day setting.I've got my notebook/desktop when I do work, my smartphone while I'm walking around, but what do I pull out while I'm on an airplane? Can I get by with just an iPad/iPhone combo for a trip out west or do I still need a laptop? If I need three devices, I'm not sure there's a point. If not, there may be a chance.
Take care,
Anand
BadgerPoison - Sunday, January 31, 2010 - link
I agree with you that the question is whether or not there is room for this device. As you mentioned, this device may have usefulness during travel where a phone is insufficient. I disagree with your analysis of the netbook, and specifically, the value of the iPad over a netbook.There are 2 key benefits of a netbook where the iPad fails. First, netbooks are relatively cheap at $300 with 6.5 hours of wifi or 10 hours radio-less. Second, netbooks are capable of running office applications and being productive. For office applications, web browsing, and video/audio - netbook performance is sufficient in my experience. Together, these make netbooks an excellent choice for productive (professional and student) travelers. Netbooks are gaining a lot of interest at my school, and I see more of them every week.
The iPad looks awesome as a supplement to the TV when lying on a couch, for browsing while traveling, or maybe as an e-book reader. But not for being productive - not for justifying its $499 price for those without discretionary income.
OBLAMA2009 - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
yes whether ipad succeeds will depend on how it works once we all get to see it up close. at the very least ipad will probably lead to cheaper windows tablets with greater functionality and low priced mobile data plans that will have the power to replace laptops for light surfing and computingjasperjones - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
Excellent comment. I almost like this better than the actual article :-)I'm not gonna drag along iPad + laptop. It's either ... or. Robustness is a factor in this. An iPad contains big, relatively unprotected piece of glass. What's the expected life time of this thing? The other factor is, of course, productivity, as you discussed.
jimhsu - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - link
I'm still trying to figure out where this fits between my iPhone, kindle, and yet-to-arrive laptop currently being manhandled by UPS. The "internet capability" saturation has reached a maximum here, and an additional device won't help that.