So you're saying that you want an older product to be faster then a newer one and if the newer product is faster you'll be upset
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My beef with A10X
- Thread starter macduke
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Intel has been developing the x86 architecture for almost 40 years. They have probably spent trillions of dollars on it in 2017 dollars. It is the "old guy" on the block. It is known in the modern area as being inefficient when compared to its ARM brother. The ARM processor is a much newer technology that was intentionally designed for a smaller power envelope. Even now we really don't see 45W ARM processors because the tech wasn't meant to scale to that level (though it may soon). ARM still has alot of development left in it compared to the x86 architecture and Apple is putting a lot of cash behind that. Those forces will push the CPU to be better in relatively short release cycles. Also the iPhone is the Apple flagship and largest revenue item (by far). It makes sense from a dollars perspective to put the more advanced chip in the iPhone to motivate customers to buy. Intel used 12-18 month cycles for CPUs and even now that has been replaced with something that looks more like 24+. Apple has no such release cycle. They put the best possible chip in the newest product as far as their ARM devices.
What doesn't the thread starter not get about the supply line and marketing?
First I bought the 10.5 Pro as an upgrade to the Air2 and with the exception of the larger screen, more memory and Pencil it's really not a huge noticeable improvement.
Apple sells devices and generates a mystique through marketing to go with them. The reality is most really never even needed the first iPad and yet we (with a capital I am included in that we) fell in love with them and Apple makes millions or billions with them.
Now let's all get over the "Pro" idea of these devices. I will bet most purchasers do very little "pro" stuff on them.
Love marketing psychology.
First I bought the 10.5 Pro as an upgrade to the Air2 and with the exception of the larger screen, more memory and Pencil it's really not a huge noticeable improvement.
Apple sells devices and generates a mystique through marketing to go with them. The reality is most really never even needed the first iPad and yet we (with a capital I am included in that we) fell in love with them and Apple makes millions or billions with them.
Now let's all get over the "Pro" idea of these devices. I will bet most purchasers do very little "pro" stuff on them.
Love marketing psychology.
Nope, definitely pro user of 12.9 here. If used as a simple tablet with no keyboard and pencil, then it'll be very similar to traditional iPads... The new 12.9 and 10.5 have vastly higher refresh rates and display colour improvements over trad. iPads which adds value for creative pros. Significantly more RAM is another one, as is the more powerful processors capable of varying high-intensity tasks. Definitely Pro devices.
I'd love to see that definition of "pro", it's just marketing - in the same way it is on the PS4.
It just means a step above the base model in terms of hardware, but in no way does it imply it's a desktop replacement period, sorry. The iPad is still a lite device aimed at occasion workflows.
Posted from my iPad Pro
It just means a step above the base model in terms of hardware, but in no way does it imply it's a desktop replacement period, sorry. The iPad is still a lite device aimed at occasion workflows.
Posted from my iPad Pro
The A11 will no doubt match, or even supersede, the A10X. Technology only moves forward (for the most part).
Pro = Productivity
You see that word mentioned a few times in Apple's iPad marketing material.
I don't get why people are so bothered by this. The only valid reason to get bothered is if Apple decides to release refreshed iPad Pros with the A11 processor at the same time the A11 iPhone is announced.
Now that is very good reason to be bothered - and unfortunately not completely impossible after what happened with the 4 month interval between the 128GB and 256GB iPad Pros.
Now that is very good reason to be bothered - and unfortunately not completely impossible after what happened with the 4 month interval between the 128GB and 256GB iPad Pros.
Completely impossible unless project leads at Apple were insane.
A photomask set for a 10nm chip alone is around $5 million. Ballpark estimate for A10 design, validation, and test: $150 million. Let's say the A10X derivative costs a conservative additional $15 million.
That means $20 million for a three month run of A10X iPad Pro from June to September.
Introducing higher density NAND is entirely different.
But I'm not sure how an X on the end of the CPU name and 120hz makes it "more productive" than any other version.
It's just marketing BS.
"ProMotion, a new technology that delivers refresh rates of up to 120Hz for fluid scrolling, greater responsiveness and smoother motion content. With ProMotion, Apple Pencil is even more responsive with an industry-best, 20-millisecond latency for even more fluid and natural drawing."
"The powerful new 64-bit A10X Fusion [...] tackling complex tasks like editing photos and 4K video, rendering 3D images or playing games feels effortless."
It's all in the press release.
It's the extra core mate and the increase of the L2 cache that puts it above anything released previously by a huge margin in multi core performance and productivity apps tend to use multiple cores. Also saying that there's no difference between a PS4 and a PS4 Pro is kind of ridiculous.
It doesn't sound like you have any experience with the iPad Pro and Pencil. The old one is limited to drawing or writing about 0.5" per second due to lag. The new one enables you to draw or write twice as fast.
I don't know what to say if you don't think a faster processor doesn't enhance productivity.
Well I've worked with and for the largest tech companies in the world on IT solutions and productivity is generally not linked to the processor, it's all about workflow efficiencies...
My pro is not more productive than any of the other 6 iPads i have. Some of those have A7 CPUs in them.
I haven't used a pencil, I'm not an artist.
My comment was about the "pro" moniker, not the difference which is actually only GPU based and a bit of a let down when compared to the Xbox, but thats a different topic..
The X chips have beefed up graphics necessary to support the much higher resolution displays found on iPads.
Just compare GFXBench 3.0 Onscreen framerates for the iPhone SE with A9 (1136 x 640 = 727,040 pixels) versus the 1st gen iPad Pro 12.9 with A9X (2732 x 2048 = 5,595,136 pixels). The iPhone SE practically hits VSYNC at 54 FPS while the Pro 12.9 (A9X) sits around 33 FPS.
If you put an A9 chip on a Pro 12.9, I wouldn't be surprised to see similar lag to the iPad Air in animation/GUI.
That said, whether one can use iPads for productivity depends on what exactly an individual does and availability of apps for one's tasks.
That just means it is not pro for you. It is not your hammer. But for others it is a legit professional tool.
Conutz
I'm actually a "Pro" user and have four iPads, one of which is provided by the corp I work for and is exclusively used for their content and communications, it's an Air2 (I don't see any upgrades with that one for at least two more years). My personal 10.5" is used for app development and Apple Pencil (great new feature), while my older personal Air2 will be retired and passed on to another user (the other is a mini retina and works great for my grandson to use when he's with me).
For text and app development I use a 2016 13" tbMBP and that is far superior to all the speed and features of the latest "Pro" but I have different needs than others. So I hope we can agree "Pro" is simply a marketing ploy and not really a definition of who the machine is marketed to.
BTW the 10.5" is a better and more advanced device than the older Air2, I'm not arguing those points.
Is the Macbook Pro a marketing term too?
I mean at least the iPad Pro has a pencil, which is a clear distinction. For example, it allows for artists to work on a New Yorker cover from an iPad Pro - http://9to5mac.com/2017/05/26/watch-artist-create-this-weeks-new-yorker-cover-on-an-ipad-pro/ which is something that a lower-end iPad could not do.
The Macbook Pro for me is marketing too. It is better than the Macbook sure but it is not like you cannot work on a Macbook 12inch or an Air, for the vast majority of things that people use their laptops for.
I've never gotten this - they're phones. The tablets should get the power; they have the displays and apps.
It's nothing to do with being a professional tool, how many times do we need to go around the merry go round. The iPads all run the same OS. Pro is just a name, apple could have equally called it student, insecure, expensive, pen edition, high frequency, A for artist or R (for Ram), but none of that works in the marketing world.