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

  • easp - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    This makes no sense. How is 3 not feasable for mass fabrication? Not that it really matters, because you haven't made a strong case for why 3 cores is more desirable than 2.

    If a background download slows things down to a crawl the software is either doing it wrong, or the bottleneck is elsewhere, like the wireless connection, or the speed of the flash memory.
  • etre - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    Android works that way. It is using 2 cores, firing the 3th core under heavy load from time to time while the 4th core barely sees up-time at all. This is not a guess, but what most apps used for tweaking kernel settings will show you.

    So, I agree with the people above, at this moment, 3 cores processors will be enough. I don't know how much cost savings will enable this ...

    As for how fast is Krait 400 ... is fast. Coming from quad A9 to quad Krait 400 is very noticeable.

    Anyway, at this point, the biggest improvement will be for Google to drop java ... but I guess it will not happen.
  • Roland00Address - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Your phones have different version of krait cores (200 vs 300) There is huge performance difference between said cores even if both your phones were quad cores, see here
  • This Is It - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Not so fast, mate.

    Both are based from different Kraits to start with. On HTC One, it's actually based on Krait 300 (updated version of Krait) with higher DMIPS. Also, it's clocked much faster compared to OG Krait.

    And for the perceived performance (UI fluidity, gaming, etc), HTC One is also at advantage due to the newer generation of GPUs Adreno inside its Snapdragon 600.
  • Jumangi - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Your talking totally subjective experience, on 2 different models of phones with different implementations of Android possibly running very different setups in apps, background tasks etc. In other words Apples to Oranges.

    A phone like the Moto X runs just fine with a duel core CPU just like iPhones do. More cores doesn't automatically mean better performance.
  • tuxRoller - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    With 64bit you also get larger and, typically, more registers which are nothing but win. Reply
  • ninjaquick - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Exactly, bigger registers is what they are touting on the slides anyways. I am not an apple fanboy, but this is still exciting new for mobile, assuming develpers take advantage of it. Reply
  • easp - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    The developers most apt to take advantage of it are the people working on the compilers for XCode. I'm guessing that most other developers will take advantage of it by checking the box to compile a version of their app for the new ISA, something Apple will probably start requiring for App Store acceptance anyway.

    I'm sure that there are some who will take more advantage of it, just as there have been some who still code critical codepaths in assember.
  • Daniel Egger - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Why would Apple require to sacrifice 32bit compatibility? I hope there's far more to that than just having fat binaries available, which would be a huge bloat for all users. For starters it might be a good win if they just optimized the system to scream in 64bit code while the applications continue to boast only 32bit. Reply
  • easp - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    It surprised me as well, but 64bit isn't useless on a device with smaller memory.

    First, being able to operate on larger chunks of data is useful for a variety of tasks that have nothing to do with big integers.

    Second, a larger unified address space could help with things like large memory mapped files in flash, which is already much larger than 4GB. I don't know, but I wonder if it is also useful for certainly security approaches, like address space randomization.

    My best guess is that there are multiple factors behind making the move now: First and foremost, that they need to get their eventually. Given this, it is a question of timing. Arguments in favor of making the change sooner rather than latter: Minimizes one source of differences between OSX and iOS. Silicon design investment in new ISA, rather than legacy ISA. More GP registers, option for wider operations, "marketing." Arguments against would be increased cost due to die area and power consumption, it would seem that those considerations were less significant.

    And then there is always the possibility that they are going to be using these chips in another class of device all together...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now