Apple's iPad - The AnandTech Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Brian Klug & Vivek Gowri on April 7, 2010 9:39 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mac
- Apple
- iPad
- Mobile
The Silicon - Meet the A4
Before the first iPad was ever unboxed, photos had already leaked of its dissection. Admittedly, I was relieved as it meant I didn’t have to risk destroying mine to figure out how to get inside the chassis. Why was getting inside Apple’s new tablet such a big deal? Because it’s using Apple’s brand new SoC.
It’s called the A4 because it is the 4th generation SoC designed by Apple. That would make the silicon in the iPhone 3GS the A3, the A2 would be what’s in the iPhone and perhaps A1 was an older iPod chip? Either way, the A4 was the first we heard of Apple’s naming system.
For months leading up to the iPad announcement everyone assumed that Apple’s acquisition of PA Semi meant that the company was going to ditch Samsung and come forth with its own killer SoC. Would it be an out-of-order Cortex A9 design? Or would it be truly custom, similar to what Marvell or Qualcomm have done with their Armada and Snapdragon lines?
As with everything involving the iPad, rumors of the device’s silicon ran rampant. But the idea of Apple doing their own microprocessor architecture for the iPad was disappointing to me. To understand why, we have to look at Apple COO, Tim Cook’s recent statements on why Apple has been successful:
“We are the most focused company that I know of or have read of or have any knowledge of. We say no to good ideas every day. We say no to great ideas in order to keep the amount of things we focus on very small in number so that we can put enormous energy behind the ones we do choose.”
Tim was talking about products there, but I believe his statement is applicable to the A4 as well. Apple is not a microprocessor company, nor does Apple want to toss its hat in with the likes of Intel, NVIDIA, Qualcomm and TI as an SoC maker. History has shown us that the only way to be a successful microprocessor company is to be able to subsidize the high cost of designing a powerful architecture over an extremely large install base. That’s why x86 survived, and it’s why the ARM business model works.
Designing high performance SoCs just for use in the iPad and iPhone just doesn’t make sense. In the short term, perhaps, but in the long run it would mean that Apple would have to grow the microprocessor side of its business considerably. That means tons of engineers, more resources that aren’t product focused, and honestly re-inventing the wheel a lot.
The fact that the A4 appears to be little more than a 45nm, 1GHz Cortex A8 paired with a PowerVR SGX GPU tells me that Apple isn’t off its rocker. I don’t exactly know what Apple is doing with all of these CPU and GPU engineers in house, but licensing tech from the companies who have experience in building the architectures is still on the menu.
The A4 is a typical smartphone SoC. It’s got CPU, GPU and DRAM all on a single package. It also appears to be the same size as your typical smartphone SoC, meaning there’s a good chance we’ll see this thing in the next iPhone. The A4 has 256MB of on-package DRAM, just like the current iPhone 3GS SoC. Remember that memory is used for the OS, all applications as well as video memory. It’s a testament to just how lightweight the iPhone OS is.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
108 Comments
View All Comments
dagamer34 - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link
Anyone who looks at the raw costs of materials and bases decisions of a product being "overpriced" has never taken Business 101.I'll limit myself to 4 things which that "50-60%" pays for:
1) Running Apple stores and employees
2) Running Apple itself in Cupertino (and worldwide) - employees, board, executives, etc.
3) Apple product support for the first year (phone support, in-person support, etc.)
4) Warranties (i.e. - your iPad breaks in the first year and you complain they should fix it on their dime)
NEVER assume a company gets a "huge" profit when only looking at BOM. That's just idiotic. And it's almost impossible to know how much the points I listed above factor into a product's cost in any great detail without making huge assumptions or pure guesswork.
manicfreak - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link
Doesn't change the fact the profit gained from the iPad is higher than the iPod from the last few years.Overpriced.
GTaudiophile - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
That is indeed one of the best episodes of TOP GEAR ever.And then at the end, they all drive home to Sigur Ros playing in the background.
semo - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
"There's also an optional VGA output, but I won't point out what issues I have with that."Why?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
I was poking fun at it, I thought it was obvious what my issues with a VGA dongle would be. Especially given that Apple's own products haven't supported VGA in years, and the input is definitely not common on modern HDTVs.It looks like the iPad is missing a TMDS as we don't get any options for digital out (HDMI, DVI, DP). I'll clarify in the article :)
Take care,
Anand
PhilipHa - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
You may be interested inhttp://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2010/4/7/the-...
contains some interesting performance comparisons between x86 and ARM (but not IPAD)
pervisanathema - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
You would be much wiser to wait for the inevitable widescreen version with a camera and faster CPU. I guarantee Apple has one in the works and they are simply waiting to screw the early adopters. The 4:3 aspect ratio was obviously picked solely so they would have a compelling reason to force people to buy the next revision.dagamer34 - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link
OR 4:3 works better with books and it's the same ratio as the iPhone?Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
You pick a heck of a time to start complaining about apple's app pricing. Of course they are going to charge an arm and a leg for apps. That's what apple does. That's ALL apple does. This device, all told, requires an over $1500 investment for 2 years.iPad $500
Bag $30
10 Apps $120
2 years of service $720
Other accessories $50
Taxes ~$100
Total >$1500
It is a ripoff of epic proportions. It's no faster than a penium III notebook I can buy on ebay for $68. This is outrageous. Are you out of your flippin mind? The real economy is in the middle of a depression. Real private GDP is down close to 20%. By and large, the only people who are going to be able to afford this overpriced garbage are people sucking off the government teat. (Like union trash collectors and station agents who make 6 figure salaries.) Nobody who actually works for a living in the private sector is going to spend $1500 on something like this, not if they wish to remain solvent anyway.
strikeback03 - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link
Umm, your numbers are slightly off. There is no service fee for the WiFi-only $500 iPad. The 3G version starts at $630.Besides that though, I know plenty of people who have the disposable income to buy a toy like this of they wished. Sure it is overpriced, but just as there are consumers who pay $500 and up for video cards ther are some who pay $600-700 for expensive toys like this. It is arguably a better use of money than that $800 netbook Sony came out with last year.