Apple just announced the iPhones 5S featuring the A7 SoC, which is the world's first consumer ARM based SoC with 64-bit support. We're likely talking about an updated version of Apple's Swift microprocessor with ARMv8 support.

Check out our full coverage of Apple's Town Hall event in our live blog.



View All Comments

  • kyuu - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Is it? I'd like to see some data for that. All I know is that my work iPad2 is constantly having to refresh tabs in Safari due them being dumped for lack for memory. Reply
  • danbob999 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    It has nothing to do with memory efficiency. The OS itself requires a tiny amount of RAM. When we are talking about 2-4 GB RAM on a tablet, most RAM is used by the applications themselves. Just take a look on your PC how much RAM your web browser is using. 1GB is not enough for a $600+ device released in 2013. Reply
  • solipsism - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    Since when is the amount of RAM needed by a system dependent on how much that device costs? Reply
  • doobydoo - Thursday, September 12, 2013 - link

    Because obviously if you spend more on a computer you expect it to be more capable. At a certain price point, reduced functionality may be acceptable - but he's saying that $600 isn't that price. Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Surprisingly enough, quad core CPU's in phones are nice. Honestly I think 3 cores are really all that is necessary but I can tell you there is a MASSIVE difference in performance between my Razr HD MAXX (2x1.5Ghz Krait) and my wife's HTC Ones (4x1.7Ghz Krait). And that is coming from first hand experience, not benchmarks or anything like that. Reply
  • andykins - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    I bet the software is completely different though so it's not exactly a fair comparison. Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    I agree on the three core thing. Two seems too few, even on the fastest hardware a background download and something just as graphically heavy as the app store can slow things to a crawl. 4 may seem excessive, 3 seems perfect but it's not feasible for mass fabrication. Reply
  • Hubb1e - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Three seems good to me as well. All the benches seem to show that the 4th core is barely ever used so why not go with a 3 core? I had a 3 core Athlon and it was a great chip at the time. Reply
  • stacey94 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Mobile SoCs are hotplugged anyway... so if the 4th core isn't used, it would be shut off. So why would you want to take away a core some heavy application can potentially use? It's not like it's hurting you when it's not being used. Reply
  • Kevin G - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    The reason wouldn't be performance but better usage of die space. The area for an extra core could go to more cache, accelerators or bigger GPU. An SoC is balancing act of resources. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now