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
AmbroseAthan - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
But it doesn't destroy the iPod touch in every way. The reason I want an iPod touch is music in my pocket (or any other MP3 player). The iPad does NOT offer this in any way. The only solution is too buy an iPad + an MP3 player, so I now have two devices again. The power of the iPhone/touch was that they gave you the internet and the apps in a pocket sized form factor.Personally, for the same price, and general size, as an iPad I can buy an Acer 1810T, have close to the same battery life, gain a keyboard, HDMI out, etc etc. Combined with my Touch, I can now do everything an iPad / MP3 player can do, I just am able to do almost all of it better, the exception possibly being e-reading. But, my Kindle does e-reading, and uses e-ink, so the iPad has no chance on winning the reason people use Kindle's, readability.
AmbroseAthan - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
But it doesn't destroy the iPod touch in every way. The reason I want an iPod touch is music in my pocket (or any other MP3 player). The iPad does NOT offer this in any way. The only solution is too buy an iPad + an MP3 player, so I now have two devices again. The power of the iPhone/touch was that they gave you the internet and the apps in a pocket sized form factor.Personally, for the same price, and general size, as an iPad I can buy an Acer 1810T, have close to the same battery life, gain a keyboard, HDMI out, etc etc. Combined with my Touch, I can now do everything an iPad / MP3 player can do, I just am able to do almost all of it better, the exception possibly being e-reading. But, my Kindle does e-reading, and uses e-ink, so the iPad has no chance on winning the reason people use Kindle's, readability.
heulenwolf - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
You're right, its the first in a whole new breakthrough category. Its called the coffee-table computer: http://agcrazylegs.blogspot.com/2010/01/ipad-its-c...">http://agcrazylegs.blogspot.com/2010/01...ts-coffe...T2k - Friday, January 29, 2010 - link
Stop talking BS, only to plug your crappy-lame-clueless blog.MANY devices are available already, Apple is simply trying to re-badge an idea as theirs, as always..
dotroy - Monday, February 1, 2010 - link
You should shut your lame mouth. How old are you ? 12 ? Atech is not a clueless blog you idiot. iPad is not a re badge. Atom based net books all face trouble: "Try running Win7" on it and fire up photo shop let see you productivity. These days I have stopped reading blog comments because there seem to be lots of child out there who does not read the article and even after reading the article they do not undersatnd what is being said ..so they just be lame as usual.Symelian - Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - link
""Try running Win7" on it and fire up photo shop let see you productivity." - this is a totally inappropriate example - it's like saying that a crap car can't win the Le Mans - it wasn't built for that so ofc it will not be able to take it - why don't you try and render graphics (Maya/3DSMax) and so on and ofc it will run like crap ---> it's a NETbook - it's not a desktop computer and if u expect it to perform as one it will fail miserablythe main thing for me against ever getting an iPad is the lack of multitasking - that's an absolute deal breaker for me without exception - it's 2010 and no multitasking? no tnx ....
dotroy - Thursday, February 4, 2010 - link
it's 2010 and no multitasking? no tnx .... that is either a lie or ignorance. Do you own a iphone ? iPhone can do multitasking for native application (Listen to music, read email) and you can add multitasking for any app if you use "backgrounder" app from Cydia. You can try it , if you actually own a iPhone.piroroadkill - Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - link
He's probably talking about real tablet PCsT2k - Friday, January 29, 2010 - link
xxxafkrotch - Friday, January 29, 2010 - link
So breakthrough, that it came out over a year ago from Archos.