A10X is the new A8X.

[jumpingjackflash]

The answer is in the above post you just quoted. It is 100% dependent on the task being performed, and how much CPU it uses. So let's just use ranges (assuming single-threaded apps):

A9X + 60Hz Display: Baseline
A9X + 120Hz Display: 0-100% frame rate improvement.
A10X + 60Hz Display: 0-30% frame rate improvement.
A10X + 120Hz Display: 30-100% frame rate improvement.

Does this make it any clearer?

Yes, now it starts to look more clear. Thanks.

 

[davybe]

Only time will tell how well the A10X chip will age. On single apps it will work for many years but I believe that multitasking is going to be a next big thing in the future and it requires a lot of power. I also believe that Apple changed 60Hz to 120Hz screen because of multitasking in mind.
[doublepost=1496743981][/doublepost]

I would have been happy with 50-80% performance increase and 6gb of RAM. 30-40% increase and same old 4gb of RAM after 18 months is just not enough for me. So I'll wait.

I'm curious: is it not enough for you in terms of you suffer from too slow apps? Or do you simply require the numbers to be greater for your money?

 

[rui no onna]

I think the A10X is like the A8X for many reasons, all positive unlike some seem to think. The A8X was, and still is, a very powerful chip. It was the first Apple SoC with more than two cores and more than 1GB of RAM. From that standpoint alone, the A8X will go down as one of the most future-proof SoCs for iPads. The A9 didn’t beat it in benchmarks, and the A9X just barely did because all three cores in the A8X were ‘High’ power versus the 2 high/2 low ‘quad’ setup in the A9/A9X. The Pro only got close because of a higher clock speed. The Pro 2 took the 3 high power cores of the Air 2, increased the clock speed to that of the A9X, tacked on 3 low power cores and quadrupled the L2 cache from 2MB to 8MB (the A9X only had 3MB). Let me put it this way: iOS 11 beta 1 runs buttery smooth on my 2.5 year old Air 2. If this tradition continues, I see no reason why the Pro 2 won’t last just as long, if not longer. I have doubts about the Pro 1 though.

You've got the chipsets mixed up.

A8

• A8: 2x Typhoon CPU, 4-Cluster PowerVR Series6 GPU
• A8X: 3x Typhoon CPU, 8-Cluster PowerVR Series6XT GPU

A9 (significant IPC improvement + notably higher clock rate)

• A9: 2x Twister CPU, 6-Cluster PowerVR Series7 GPU
• A9X: 2x Twister CPU, 12-Cluster PowerVR Series7XT GPU

A10 Fusion (IPC + higher clock rate, custom big.LITTLE implementation)

• A10: 2x Hurricane + 2x low-power CPU, 6-Core PowerVR GPU
• A10X: 3x Hurricane + 3x low-power CPU, ? GPU

Simply put, Apple has been doing amazingly well on the chipset front.

 

[Sparky2012]

A10 Fusion (IPC + higher clock rate, custom big.LITTLE implementation)

• A10: 2x Hurricane + 2x low-power CPU, 6-Core PowerVR GPU
• A10X: 3x Hurricane + 3x low-power CPU, ? GPU

Simply put, Apple has been doing amazingly well on the chipset front

The A10X includes a 12 Core GPU although it's unknown as of yet if it's their own GPU, or a PowerVR GPU.

 

[jumpingjackflash]

I'm curious: is it not enough for you in terms of you suffer from too slow apps? Or do you simply require the numbers to be greater for your money?

In general: From a device such as iPad I want the best longetivity possible for my needs. Im not interested of uppgrading every year or so. It's not about the cost but more of a principle and avoiding the unnecessary hassle.

 

[MentalFloss]

I'm underwhelmed by the increase in power, only 30 and 40 for CPU and GPU. I was in the market to update my iPad Air 2 but now I think I'll go for a cheap A9X. Coming from an iPhone 6 and iPad Air 2 owner, you need at least a 2X jump in performance like iPads in the past to make it a true longevity model. I still shudder at my underpowered iPhone 6 (A8 chip) which only had a 25 and 50 increase compare to the A7.

Someone commits the obviously nonsensical fallacy of trying to extrapolate future developments in OS and app performance demands vs CPU power from past developments and a whole thread develops where people actually discuss about that? Bit of a facepalm situation here.

10-15 years ago, when you bought a new PC or Mac, it took less than a year for it to feel underpowered, because new developments on the software side quickly exceeded the available computing power. So people upgraded their computers very frequently. Nowadays, PC sales are slumping, because that is no longer the case and people are happy with their PC's computing power for a long time. I think this development would show that past developments in computing power vs software performance demands are not an indicator of future developments.

 

[rui no onna]

10-15 years ago, when you bought a new PC or Mac, it took less than a year for it to feel underpowered, because new developments on the software side quickly exceeded the available computing power. So people upgraded their computers very frequently. Nowadays, PC sales are slumping, because that is no longer the case and people are happy with their PC's computing power for a long time. I think this development would show that past developments in computing power vs software performance demands are not an indicator of future developments.

You know, I didn't actually replace my computers frequently. Unless you needed to run an application with higher system requirements or were in the habit of installing a bunch of different stuff that ran in the background bogging down the system, PCs didn't really slow down.

Granted, I wasn't in the habit of updating operating systems either. If the PC came with Windows 98, I'd keep using that until the machine breaks down (usually a coin toss between HDD or motherboard being the first to go). When I buy a new PC, that's when I got the new OS. I highly doubt Windows 7 would've run all that well (if it ran at all) on my Windows 98 PC.

That development which took decades for PCs happened in a much more compressed time frame with mobile. iOS 10 on the iPad 4 is pretty much like trying to run Windows 7 on a computer that came with Windows 95. Are we past that rapid CPU growth and are now in post-Ivy Bridge territory? Possibly. However, while we might be good on the CPU front, somehow the GPU requirements have gone higher due to UI changes and the introduction of multitasking adds another wrinkle.

I'm somewhat sensitive to lag and stutters so GFXBench 3.0 Manhattan (Onscreen) is what I use to determine acceptable performance. I find devices that can deliver ~30FPS to be tolerable. Really would prefer 50+FPS, though.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10685/the-iphone-7-and-iphone-7-plus-review/4

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10285/the-iphone-se-review/2

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10286/the-97-ipad-pro-review/2

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8666/the-apple-ipad-air-2-review/4

 

[Kal-037]

I'm underwhelmed by the increase in power, only 30 and 40 for CPU and GPU. I was in the market to update my iPad Air 2 but now I think I'll go for a cheap A9X. Coming from an iPhone 6 and iPad Air 2 owner, you need at least a 2X jump in performance like iPads in the past to make it a true longevity model. I still shudder at my underpowered iPhone 6 (A8 chip) which only had a 25 and 50 increase compare to the A7.

That 30% and 40% are for the A9X comparison, looking at all of Apple's specs for each processor spec year over year (A8X v A9X v A10X)... the increase from the A10X over the A8X will be closer to 60-65% CPU and 70-80% GPU.
The A8X was a great processor, so even IF the A10X is similar, (which it's not, but we'll pretend) the A10X still blows the A8X and every mobile chip out of the water. Not a single (true tablet) comes close, it even has speeds and capabilities close to a 6th gen i7 processor, A8X isn't even close to that. I think you're trying to justify not upgrading (and that's fine to not upgrade, but being realistic; your conclusion of the A10X being this year's A8X is way, way off.)



Kallum.

 

[gobikerider]

Apple could have put a A20 chip in it and it wouldn't matter, the A9X can easily handle anything

Do you stand by this statement today?

 

[iRaynor SK]

iPad needs more RAM

https://comp-blog.com/index.php/2018/02/12/why-should-get-ipad-pro-more-ram/

 

[spiderman0616]

iPad needs more RAM

https://comp-blog.com/index.php/2018/02/12/why-should-get-ipad-pro-more-ram/

I won’t buy any iPad with less than 4 GB at this point. I want the full suite of iOS 11 multitasking features.

 

[Homme]

I think the A10X is like the A8X for many reasons, all positive unlike some seem to think. The A8X was, and still is, a very powerful chip. It was the first Apple SoC with more than two cores and more than 1GB of RAM. From that standpoint alone, the A8X will go down as one of the most future-proof SoCs for iPads. The A9 didn’t beat it in benchmarks, and the A9X just barely did because all three cores in the A8X were ‘High’ power versus the 2 high/2 low ‘quad’ setup in the A9/A9X. The Pro only got close because of a higher clock speed. The Pro 2 took the 3 high power cores of the Air 2, increased the clock speed to that of the A9X, tacked on 3 low power cores and quadrupled the L2 cache from 2MB to 8MB (the A9X only had 3MB). Let me put it this way: iOS 11 beta 1 runs buttery smooth on my 2.5 year old Air 2. If this tradition continues, I see no reason why the Pro 2 won’t last just as long, if not longer. I have doubts about the Pro 1 though.

Tack on the fact that all iPad Pro 2s will have 4GB of RAM, the A10X will go down with the A8X as one of the largest performance jumps and one of the most future proof design. That is, of course, if the leaked benchmarks are true (and I’m willing to bet they are).
[doublepost=1496995288][/doublepost]

Ehh... not quite. It’ll make system animations faster as long as the empty bufferspace in VRAM is large enough and the GPU isn’t over-taxed at the time. The refresh rate is changed by this ‘ProMotion’ companion chip (kinda like the display controller in the 5k iMac I assume) but the bits are pushed by the GPU. If the GPU can’t handle the refresh rate the ProMotion chip is requesting, it will slow down the refresh rate to whatever it can handle at the time, getting as close as it can go what the ProMotion chip requested

This is just how I’m assuming it’s going to work. But I know your refresh rate will only be as fast as your GPU allows.

Um A8X uses high efficiency cores, not high power ( performance is the correct term)

but even with iPadOS 15 the A8X has shown how futureproof it is and same with A10X as well, maybe close to futureproof as A11 Bionic

the one thing which A8X and A10X are similar in is with Geekbench 5 scores especially multicore against the A9 and A11 respectively

Industry best? Don't think so but best optimized since Apple controls it. The snapdragon 835 is better than it and the A10. Octacore cpu and the high performance ones are clocked at 2.5 compared I think the A10x is 3 2.45ghz?

A10X clock speed is 2.34 GHz same as A10

 

[rui no onna]

Um A8X uses high efficiency cores, not high power ( performance is the correct term)

but even with iPadOS 15 the A8X has shown how futureproof it is and same with A10X as well, maybe close to futureproof as A11 Bionic

the one thing which A8X and A10X are similar in is with Geekbench 5 scores especially multicore against the A9 and A11 respectively


A10X clock speed is 2.34 GHz same as A10

Apple only used one type of CPU cores on the A8X and by necessity, they were high performance. The use of both high performance and high efficiency cores only started with the A10 series.

 

[macOS Lynx]

Um A8X uses high efficiency cores, not high power ( performance is the correct term)

but even with iPadOS 15 the A8X has shown how futureproof it is and same with A10X as well, maybe close to futureproof as A11 Bionic

the one thing which A8X and A10X are similar in is with Geekbench 5 scores especially multicore against the A9 and A11 respectively


A10X clock speed is 2.34 GHz same as A10

Gurl…the comment you’re responding to is 4 years old ?

 

[darngooddesign]

Um A8X uses...

Um, you just commented on a post from 2018.

 

[Homme]

Gurl…the comment you’re responding to is 4 years old ?

yeah but there isn’t much newer threads to respond

Apple only used one type of CPU cores on the A8X and by necessity, they were high performance. The use of both high performance and high efficiency cores only started with the A10 series.

oh really.. I knew the non x chips always used high performance but I always thought the X series chips prior to A10X always used high efficiency and I swear I’ve seen posts around saying similar things

 

[rui no onna]

oh really.. I knew the non x chips always used high performance but I always thought the X series chips prior to A10X always used high efficiency and I swear I’ve seen posts around saying similar things

High efficiency means low power means slower. iPads require more performance than iPhones due to their higher display resolutions so why would Apple use slower chips on flagship iPads?

I mean, they're all very efficient particularly compared to x86 but A7-A9 series were designed more for best performance within the given power envelope rather than extreme efficiency.

 

[darngooddesign]

yeah but there isn’t much newer threads to respond

sure, because commenting on an old post was the only option. ?

 

[perezr10]

Gurl…the comment you’re responding to is 4 years old 😬

Actually, with 4 years of hindsight, it’s an even more interesting discussion now 😀

 

[Daniel L]

M1 is the new A8x and A10x

 

[Kendo]

M1 is the new A8x and A10x

Why you say that?

 

[Royksöpp]

Ram is the true bottleneck of iOS. The A10X 10.5 iPad Pro has the same ram as the iPad Air 4. The battery will probably die long before the 10.5 starts to slow down.

 

[blkjedi954]

Isn't quite the same as the ipad3.

First, Apple really had no choice but to announce the iPads w/A10X as they did. Had they waited for Sept it would have sent mixed messages since the A11 would have released by then.

The A10X has some staying power (I believe). Perhaps not as much as some would like, but I doubt the Pros get a processor bump in 2018.

Look to 2019 for the next major upgrade.

Yes, it would be have been nice for the Pro2 12.9 to have gotten 6gb RAM. But this is Apple and they don't bump the RAM until it really calls for it.

This didn’t age well…lol

 

[Homme]

now that with version 17 of the two OS’s

1. A11 iPhones aren’t getting it
2 A9X iPads aren’t getting it

SoDespite A10X iPads getting it and the A10X iPads being the oldest to support iOS/iPadOS 17 ( like the A8X from iPadOS 13-15) and with Apple dropping 7 iPhones this and last year

Good chance Apple may extend this iPad till iPadOS 18 alongside the 2 A10 iPads and the A12 iPhones ( with this strategy)

Yep A10X is the new A8X for sure

 

[Solomani]

40% like from the A9 to A10 Fusion would have been nice, but we can't have everything.

I'm more interested in knowing why Apple changed the calculator icon if they didn't include it in the iPad (or did they?)

Hello 2017. It's 2023. There's still no calculator in the iPadOS.

Apple is waiting until there is a more powerful 16th generation Apple Silicon.... so that it can run the Basic Apple Calculator app adequately.