Is Apple betting the farm on the new iPad (iPad3 or iPadHD or ?)?

[=X=]

Originally Posted by afv011

The cynic in me would say that Apple only give their customers a few updates at a time, to "force" you to upgrade. Quad-cores are mature enough to be released in tablets, but why give you a quad-core now, when they can get you to upgrade now for retina display, and upgrade again in a year to get quad-core?

+1
Apple is really good at stringing their customers along and giving them a few key features every upgrade. They're not the first company to do it, but they seem to do it the best.


Jump over To Jcampos thread Would you change your current iPad2 for the iPad3? and you'll see plenty of people are ready to upgrade. Same poll next year (when they introduce quad core) will have the same response.

=X=

[=X=]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Sadly, when I drive a car in Colombia, I have no sense of speed anymore :-( ... of course, my sport bike and car use miles.

I wonder if Colombian Police would buy this argument.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Quad core CPUs use significantly more power. Apple have already increased the size (and weight) of the battery in order to maintain the same battery life that the iPad 2 has. A quad core CPU would mean either significantly more weight, or significantly shorter battery life in return for little gain for the typical user.

Yup.
As is, the LTE 4G and the display forced a significantly larger battery that barely fit all by themselves. Apple apparently decided that for *their* customers, the battery life, screen, and graphics power outweighed raw CPU power/specmanship.

Plus, it gives them a whole year to get CPU and LTE power consumption down in time for the 2013 NextPad.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Quad core CPUs use significantly more power. Apple have already increased the size (and weight) of the battery in order to maintain the same battery life that the iPad 2 has. A quad core CPU would mean either significantly more weight, or significantly shorter battery life in return for little gain for the typical user.

Wrong. Quad-core CPUs can use LESS power than dual-cores. The Tegra-3 (quad-core) uses less power than the Tegra-2 (dual-core).

It is a common misconception that more cores equals more power. For starters, technology advances (you move from 40nm to 32nm, to 22nm), each step bringing you improved power management. Then you have other advances, like the 5th companion core on the Tegra-3 which handles background stuff, using less power than any of the cores in the Tegra-2. Also, you have improved core management at the kernel level.

And, even if quad-cores use more power than a dual-core when at full throttle, they also accomplish the task in less time, so the amount of energy, everything else being equal, would be similar (energy being power times time).

Edit: add background info

A common misconception is that a multi-core CPU consumes more power than a single core
CPU and causes significant reduction in battery life. On the contrary, due to variable symmetric
multiprocessing, the main quad core CPU architecture of Project Kal-El is more power efficient
and delivers higher performance per watt than competing single and dual core processors.

Quad-cores

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by =X=

I wonder if Colombian Police would buy this argument.

Of course they won't!!!!

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by afv011

The cynic in me would say that Apple only give their customers a few updates at a time, to "force" you to upgrade. Quad-cores are mature enough to be released in tablets, but why give you a quad-core now, when they can get you to upgrade now for retina display, and upgrade again in a year to get quad-core?

Ah, my observant friend.
Oh, wait, I see it now, a mid year update to the iPad (new?). In July or August, a quad core comes and a Siri even that works for Southern boys like myself. Naw, hold off on the Siri. Maybe the data load for that little gem is getting too high.

The only real question I really have is how many times a year can Apple dip into its customers pockets? I have seen it time and time again. I have relatives that do it. I myself have given an Ipod Touch as a requested gift.
Do all Apple customers drive Mercedes to work which they then trade for Porsches on the weekend? Do they all have medical degrees or are partners in Law Firms, and live in places called "The Reserves," "The Palisades" or "The Cliffs."
Do they all have pool boys and gardeners? Do their maids and footmen polish their collection of old (defined as 6 months owned) Apple products every morning?
Or another question is really where in heck do all the old Apple products go? There must be giant piles of old Apple products somewhere like old tires stacked up in mounds on the earth that can be seen from the space station.

I admire Apple. It is a merchandiser's dream company. I am highly suspect of its customers. I appears to me that they are somewhat like the stylistas being driven to wear only the very latest, and only once, and always looking for the next new thing.

And finally, the real question.
If they can hardly wait for the next new thing, does that mean that the thing they have isn't really all that good? Or does it mean something more?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jocampo

What's archaic ... pounds of Kg? ... because last time I read, USA and England are the only countries in the world that have not adopted Metric System.

Pounds are archaic. You're a little misinformed about the UK; weights and measures have been "metric" here for many years.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by afv011

Wrong. Quad-core CPUs can use LESS power than dual-cores. The Tegra-3 (quad-core) uses less power than the Tegra-2 (dual-core).

Actually... it depends! Depends of the application and how it handles the workload.

If the app does multi-thread in a right way, the workload certainly will be divided among CPUs, hence, the CPU frequency will be lower on each one ... so the Voltage will be lower too.

However, if the app. maxes out all four cores on a quad core, it will drain battery faster than a tablet with less cores.

Try to see it like this ... you can go from A to B on a sport car at 100mph or 10mph. You will reach B sooner, at faster speed, but you will consume much more gas as well, so your tank will be empty faster as well.

To be fair, more regular iPad activities won't consume lot of CPU cycles (like browsing), so more cores won't necessary mean less battery.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Pounds are archaic. You're a little misinformed about the UK; weights and measures have been "metric" here for many years.

Not widely adopted, I think. At least, that's what I can see on BCC channel and other mass communications mediums. They don't talk or use Metric System at all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Not widely adopted, I think. At least, that's what I can see on BCC channel and other mass communications mediums. They don't talk or use Metric System at all.

I promise you that the UK really is "metric" (with a few exceptions - road distances are measured in miles, and beer is sold in pints). Go into any store in the UK and you won't see a pound or a foot; everything is kg, metres, and litres. I forget when we switched to the metric system - some time in the 70s I think it was. A long time ago, certainly.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

I am highly suspect of its customers.

Pretty mainstream now. Like ford. Or chevy. Not like Mini or fiat.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I promise you that the UK really is "metric" (with a few exceptions - road distances are measured in miles, and beer is sold in pints). Go into any store in the UK and you won't see a pound or a foot; everything is kg, metres, and litres. I forget when we switched to the metric system - some time in the 70s I think it was. A long time ago, certainly.

I do not live there, so I trust you ...

But I have never seen Jeremy Clarkson driving a car in Kph , lol ...

I guess I can get drunk faster there, because I do not know how much a "pint" is.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by jocampo

However, if the app. maxes out all four cores on a quad core, it will drain battery faster than a tablet with less cores.

Yes, but it will finish its task faster as well. Again, more raw power does NOT equal more energy (battery usage) over the long term. The PDF I linked to in my previous post is a very good read, it explains all this in detail.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Actually... it depends! Depends of the application and how it handles the workload.

The key virtue of the Kal-el processor is that it turns off cores when they're not in use. So it can be a single, dual, triple, or quad core processor depending on the software load *and* the OS.

So it very much depends.
And it depends on the available software. If the OS and apps can't make good use of the extra cores the added power won't materialize.

If we're to use automotive metaphors, the choice of a straight dual core and a Kal-el quadcore is like choosing between a 4-cylinder engine and an 8 cylinder engine with cylinder shut down. (Like the old Caddy 4-6-8).
If you rarely need the full power of the quad core (V8) why lug around the added weight (cost) of the more complex design?

In this case the issue isn't the added cost of two more CPU cores; it is a matter of using the transistor count and die cost of the added CPU cores for GPU cores. Apple chose to spend transistors on graphics rather than general-purpose code execution.

Remember, Apple knows their customers needs better than they do.

(Seriously: those extra pixels on the display don't render themselves.)

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by afv011

The cynic in me would say that Apple only give their customers a few updates at a time, to "force" you to upgrade. Quad-cores are mature enough to be released in tablets, but why give you a quad-core now, when they can get you to upgrade now for retina display, and upgrade again in a year to get quad-core?

^ This ...Apple loves those baby steps.