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
damolol - Saturday, January 30, 2010 - link
Apart from multitasking the other deal breaker was being able to integrate the device into my existing network. Unless its able to stream and play my avi content then its useless for me.Hopefully the people who created air video will port it to the tablet?
araczynski - Saturday, January 30, 2010 - link
with all the imposed limitations on this, its screaming for a jailbreak. once a good one is out, this thing will be useable.right now its made directly for the soccer moms of the world.
i want to like this, but it will never replace my ipod touch due to lack of any portability, and having 3 consoles and a gaming pc at home, this would never get any gaming use.
basically a dust collector like the wii at my house.
but hey, i'm sure millions will buy into it. all the more power to them, i'm sure next year they'll include a bunch of intentionally omitted features (camera/etc) and milk another bunch of people, then a year later they'll introduce a better processor and probably make it slimmer as well.
so anyway, please, go ahead and buy, so they can make the better ones sooner.
medi01 - Saturday, January 30, 2010 - link
No comparison to HP Slate eh?totenkopf - Friday, January 29, 2010 - link
Seriously? Starting at $500 for that feature set? It really needs a pair of knobs on the front... because right now my nephews Etch A Sketch is looking like a more compelling media device. "To delete a file just hold the iPad upside down and and activate the 'iShake' feature. Remember to shoot yourself in the face when you are finished."Explain to me just one more time, Anand, why I would not rather have both a netbook AND an touch/zuneHD 16gb for close to that price. That thing is the same size as my Eee's screen! It's amazing! ...that my Eee can hold up its own screen while I relax with my BT mouse in one hand and my beer in the other.
Also, I'm sick of this whole "there's an app for that" mantra. Thanks, we know there is an app for that... PC users have been downloading and installing their choice of purpose built freeware on demand in under 10 minutes for a little while now... how did Jobs turn this into some kind of epiphany? Oh right, because it is relatively new for Apple. The thing is, Flash is one of those things "computers" ought to do natively. Speaking of things devices like this ought to do, I WOULD download an app that allowed me to multitask, but I'm listening to music right now.
piroroadkill - Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - link
This basic obversation clearly makes the vital killing blow against the iPad. You can drink a beer whilst using a netbook.5150Joker - Friday, January 29, 2010 - link
When the iPhone first surfaced and the details made known, I was excited! The smooth touch interface and the (nearly) fully functional browser made it an attractive device. Now fast forward several years later, Apple has refined the OS and upgraded the processor so that the latest 3GS is a pleasure to use.This iPad doesn't instill any of that excitement in me. The lack of flash for a large device such as this one is off putting for streaming video (e.g. Hulu), no multitasking is okay for an iPhone but not this. Also, as Anand mentioned, having to encode movies specifically for the iPad will be a pain and the price tag isn't very attractive for such a limited device that operates at 1024x768. I also think this device needs some sort of mouse control button similar to the ones used by Lenovo/IBM. If you make a typo or need to correct a webpage URL, using your fingers is cumbersome.
Personally, I'm more excited about 11.6" notebooks from Alienware (M11x) that do everything one could ask and are in a very portable form factor. The iPad will sell like crazy because it has an Apple logo on it but for all intents and purposes, it's overpriced and lacks function.
afkrotch - Friday, January 29, 2010 - link
I don't see this as being a revolutionary product. Nor do I see it as a new product fitting a new market. It's already been done.Ever look at the Archos 5 (5" screen) or Archos 7 (7" screen)? It does exactly what the iPad is going to do. The difference though, is the iPad is going to get a lot more apps in the future. They get to push their product based on their name, cause of the successes of the iPod and iPhone.
I'm not saying the iPad won't be a success, nor am I saying it'll be a failure. Simply just saying there's already a product that does the same thing, is more feature rich, and supports a lot more media formats. Archos's little PMP has already evolved into what is currently the iPad and has been like that for a while now.
dch1958 - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
I have an iPhone and I like it. ... like it, not love it.Some of the things it won't do still astonish me. (At least, I can do SMS now instead of just text.) Still, it's a phone. I can give it a pass on some of that. Things like having to interupt Pandora when my wife sends me a text message are annoying - particularly annoying since some level of multitasking is available (e.g., iPod functionality can start bake up). But, again, it's a phone.
The (unfortunately named) iPad, on the other hand, feels like it should be something more. The lack of multitasking is a major oversight in my opinion. And, regardless of your opinion of Flash, it's pretty ubiquitous on the web. What I see here are examples of corporate stubborness on Apple's part.
The lack of a camera seems like a huge lost opportunity to me. The form factor of this thing practically screams portable video conferencing.
I've read plenty of other reviews citing other omissions (e.g., SD capatility, printing, wireless sync capability, no stylus, etc.).
I've read a lot about it because I am genuinely interested in it as a technology. But, these issues really give me pause when it comes to plopping down my cash for one. I think Apple has done a good job (no pun intended) with what they've got. I see the iPad becoming a dominant technology for digital reading (particularly text books). The addition of iWorks apps is good too. And, all the stuff that's right about the iPhone is there too.
The iPad just misses the mark in some ways that surprise me - just like my iPhone did. And yet, it seems like the iPad should've been a bit more capable.
afkrotch - Friday, January 29, 2010 - link
I can see the iPad as being good for digital mags, newspapers, or books. So long as you aren't going to be reading for long amounts of time. Which so happens to be majority of the public, but I think the price is going to kill it in that regard. Not when an iPod Touch or iPhone can do the same.I can easily sit down and read a book, hours on end. Eye strain on an lcd is horrid. That's why I've gone to a Sony eReader and paired it up with my netbook. I also sport a Zen X-Fi2 (love drag-and-drop) and PSP. When I need more power, I also have a 12.1" laptop.
For me, the iPad has no home. For others, it may easily fit in their homes. We won't know if it'll be successful or not, but as of right now, I'm leaning towards the latter.
ph3412b07 - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - link
I get it, they're somewhere in between smartphones and netbooks...but why is the pricing more expensive, functionality worse, mediocre battery life, no handwriting recognition, no Flash...etc. Kindle is a very simple eBook device...but can also get a WEEK of functional battery life. what's the point of long standby life?At this point I'm in doubt of productivity. I expect the true motive behind this is eBook support, and revenue generated from iPad specific software. Steve wants to grab some of Amazon's fat profit.