Apple iPhone 4S: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Brian Klug on October 31, 2011 7:45 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- Mobile
- iPhone
- iPhone 4S
The A6: What's Next?
Apple has somehow managed to get a lot of the mainstream press to believe it doesn't care about specs and that it competes entirely based on user experience. Simply looking at the facts tell us a different story entirely:
| Apple SoCs | ||||||||
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||
| Process | 90nm | 90nm | 65nm | 45nm | 45nm | 28/32nm | ||
| µArch | ARM11 | ARM11 | Cortex A8 | Cortex A8 | Cortex A9 | ? | ||
| CPU Clock | 412MHz | 412MHz | 600MHz | 800MHz | 800MHz | ? | ||
Apple has been at the forefront of the mobile hardware race, particularly if we look at the iOS platform as a whole (iPad + iPhone). Apple was among the first to move from ARM11 to the Cortex A8, and once again with the move to the A9. On the GPU side Apple has been even more aggressive.
Apple hasn't stayed on the same process node for more than two generations, echoing a philosophy maintained by even the high-end PC GPU vendors. It also hasn't shipped the same microprocessor architecture for more than two generations in a row.
Furthermore Apple even seems to be ok with combining a process shrink with a new architecture as we saw with the iPhone 3GS. It's generally thought of as a risky practice to migrate to both a new process technology and a new architecture in the same generation, although if you can pull it off the benefits are wonderful.
The truth of the matter is Apple is very focused on user experience, but it enables that experience by using the fastest hardware available on the market. With that in mind, what comes in 2012 with Apple's sixth-generation SoC?
It's fairly obvious that we'll see a process node shrink. Apple has been on 45nm for two generations now and the entire market will be moving to 28/32nm next year. If Apple sticks with Samsung, it'll be on their 32nm LP process.
The CPU architecture is a bit of a question at this point. We already know that Qualcomm will be shipping its next-generation Krait architecture in devices in the first half of 2012. TI, on the other hand, will deliver an ARM Cortex A15 based competitor by the end of next year. The aggressive move would be for Apple to once again migrate to a new process and architecture and debut a Cortex A15 design at 32nm next year.
Looking purely at historical evidence it would seem likely that we'd get a 32nm dual-Cortex A9 design at higher clocks first. If Apple wants to release an iPad update early next year, that's likely what we'll see. That still doesn't preclude a late 2012 release of a dual-Cortex A15 solution, perhaps for use in the next iPhone.
Note that we haven't talked much about potential GPU options for Apple's next silicon. Given the huge upgrade we saw going into the A5 and likely resolution targets for next-generation tablets, it's likely that we'll see pretty big gains there as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
199 Comments
View All Comments
robco - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
I've been using the 4S from launch day and agree that Siri needs some work. That being said, it's pretty good for beta software. I would imagine Apple released it as a bonus for 4S buyers, but also to keep the load on their servers small while they get some real-world data before the final version comes in an update.The new camera is great. As for me, I'm glad Apple is resisting the urge to make the screen larger. The Galaxy Nexus looks nice, but the screen will be 4.65". I want a smartphone, not a tablet that makes phone calls. I honestly wouldn't want to carry something much larger than the iPhone and I would imagine I'm not the only one.
Great review as always.
TrackSmart - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
I'm torn on screen size myself. Pocketable is nice. But I'm intrigued by the idea of a "mini-tablet" form factor, like the Samsung Galaxy Note with it's 5.3" screen (1280x800 resolution) and almost no bezel. That's HUGE for a phone, but if it replaces a tablet and a phone, and fits my normal pants pockets, it would be an interesting alternative. The pen/stylus is also intriguing. I will be torn between small form factor vs mini-tablet when I make my phone upgrade in the near future.To Anand and Brian: I'd love to see a review of the Samsung Galaxy Note. Maybe Samsung can send you a demo unit. It looks like a refined Dell Streak with a super-high resolution display and Wacom digitizer built in. Intriguing.
Rick83 - Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - link
That's why I got an Archos 5 two years ago. And what can I say? It works.Sadly the Note is A) three times as expensive as the Archos
and B) not yet on Android 4
there's also C) Codec support will suck compared to the Archos, and I'm pretty sure Samsung won't release an open bootloader, like Archos does.
I'm hoping that Archos will soon release a re-fresh of their smaller size tablets base on OMAP 4 and Android 4.
Alternatively, and equally as expensive as the Note, is the Sony dual-screen tablet. Looks interesting, but same caveats apply....
kylecronin - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
> It’s going to be a case by case basis to determine which 4 cases that cover the front of the display work with the 4S.Clever
metafor - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
"Here we have two hypothetical CPUs, one with a max power draw of 1W and another with a max power draw of 1.3W. The 1.3W chip is faster under load but it draws 30% more power. Running this completely made-up workload, the 1.3W chip completes the task in 4 seconds vs. 6 for its lower power predecessor and thus overall power consumed is lower. Another way of quantifying this is to say that in the example above, CPU A does 5.5 Joules of work vs. 6.2J for CPU B."The numbers are off. 4 seconds vs 6 seconds isn't 30% faster. Time-to-complete is the inverse of clockspeed.
Say a task takes 100 cycles. It would take 1 second on a 100Hz, 1 IPC CPU and 0.77 seconds on a 130Hz, 1 IPC CPU. This translates to 4.62 sec if given a task that takes 600 cycles of work (6 sec on the 100Hz, 1 IPC CPU).
Or 1W * 6s = 6J = 1.3W * 4.62s
Exactly the same amount of energy used for the task.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
Err sorry, I should've clarified. For the energy calculations I was looking at the entire period of time (10 seconds) and assumed CPU A & B have the same 0.05W idle power consumption.Doing the math that way you get 1W * 6s + 0.05W * 4s = 6.2J (CPU B)
and
1.3W * 4s + 0.05W * 6s = 5.5J (CPU A)
metafor - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
Erm, that still presents the same problem. That is, a processor running at 130% the clockspeed will not finish in 4 seconds, it will finish in 4.62s.So the result is:
1W * 6s + 0.05W * 4s = 6.2J (CPU B)
1.3W * 4.62s + 0.05 * 5.38s = 6.275J (CPU A)
There's some rounding error there. If you use whole numbers, say 200Hz vs 100Hz:
1W * 10s + 0.05W * 10s = 10.5W (CPU B running for 20s with a task that takes 1000 cycles)
2W * 5s + 0.05W * 15s = 10.75W (CPU A running for 10s with a task that takes 1000 cycles)
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
I wasn't comparing clock speeds, you have two separate processors - architectures unknown, 100% hypothetical. One draws 1.3W and completes the task in 4s, the other draws 1W and completes in 6s. For the sake of drawing a parallel to the 4S vs 4 you could assume that both chips run at the same clock. The improvements are entirely architectural, similar to A5 vs. A4.Take care,
Anand
metafor - Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - link
In that case, the CPU that draws 1.3W is more power efficient, as it managed to gain a 30% power draw for *more* than a 30% performance increase.I absolutely agree that this is the situation with the A5 compared to the A4, but that has nothing to do with the "race to sleep" problem.
That is to say, if CPU A finishes a task in 4s and CPU B finishes a task in 6s. CPU A is more than 30% faster than CPU B; it has higher perf/W.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - link
It is race to sleep though. The more power efficient CPU can get to sleep quicker (hurry up and wait is what Intel used to call it), which offsets any increases in peak power consumption. However, given the right workload, the more power efficient CPU can still use more power.Take care,
Anand