• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Daitokuji

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,602
The thing about gaming is all you need is an iPad, a cable to plug it into a TV and a wireless controller and you have console gaming. So the barrier for people who already own iPads is super low. But there's too much money involved in everything else that Apple does that concentrating on gaming is probably not something they need to do.
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
Some more interesting Geekbench numbers:


Geekbench multi-core
  • Apple iPad Pro 12.9 w/Apple A12X Bionic – 18,217
  • Apple iPhone XS w/Apple A12 Bionic – 11,472
  • Apple iPhone X w/Apple A11 Bionic – 10,215
  • Snapdragon 8150 – 10,084
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro w/Kirin 980 – 9,712
  • Google Pixel 3 XL w/Snapdragon 845 – 8,088
Geekbench single-core
  • Apple iPad Pro 12.9 w/Apple A12X Bionic – 5,020
  • Apple iPhone XS w/Apple A12 Bionic – 4,823
  • Apple iPhone X w/Apple A11 Bionic – 4,256
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro w/Kirin 980 – 3,291
  • Snapdragon 8150 – 3,181
  • Google Pixel 3 XL w/Snapdragon 845 – 2,363
https://liliputing.com/2018/11/qualcomm-snapdragon-8150-apple-a12x-bionic-benchmarks-leaked.html

This is first time I've seen Snapdragon 8150 numbers (successor to SD 845). I don't know why the multicore number is so much closer to A12 than single core. Is SD 8150 Decacore or something?
 

Arkaign

Member
Nov 25, 2017
1,991
Geekbench is garbage, but now that Photoshop is coming along nicely with truly awesome iOS progress, we should be able to get some effective duplicate-process benchmarks together.
 

Blackpuppy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,239
Man these Apple Arm chip scores have got me on the Arm mac bandwagon.

This latest Air update looks pretty milquetoast when you've got this powerhouse of a cpu in their tablets.
 

Hogendaz85

Member
Dec 6, 2017
2,821
I mean I see people going batshit about the A12x beating i7s but wouldn't the real comparison be to stick an A12x in a windows system that had the i7 and see how they compare there and the same with putting an i7 in the iPad Pro.


There's more to it than the score I would imagine
 

Veliladon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,563
Even the Xr's CPU puts that of the MB/MBA to shame. Need that x86 compatibility on OS X, though (for now).

They could stick an x86 decoder on the front end alongside the ARM. Run a CPU core in x64 or AArch64 modes. It's been done before with PPC. Don't know why it wouldn't work for ARM.
 

Veliladon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,563
Alternatively, you could just stick an entire ARM co-processor on the board and have the iOS app write to its own backing store.
 

8byte

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,880
Kansas
If you are handling huge files professionally, you will still be running Photoshop on X86 on desktops.

This post suggests that Photoshop CC on iOS cannot handle "huge files professionally". False. It can, and has (during a live stream, no less). For most projects, Photoshop CC on iOS will have no problems working.

Come on man. Unless Adobe starts to knee cap X86 versions, 100+W X86 CPU will cream 15W A12X one any day.

This omits Adobe Sensei functionality, which is being used more and more by Adobe to offload computational tasks to cloud computing, thus allowing under powered devices to still be feature complete. You also have not used Photoshop CC on iOS, so I'm not sure how you know, definitively, what it can and cannot do comparatively to Desktops, or what those speed comparisons are. You also don't know the differences in memory management or program overhead, and how certain features will work between the two versions. This is a baseless assumption, at best, on your part.

Objectively, a powerful desktop will always be the most powerful and flexible option. However, that does not mean that they are not at all comparable in functionality or capability for most tasks, just that a desktop workstation can handle more heavy lifting for very specific tasks and situations. Until we have side by side comparisons for both under the same workload conditions, it is not possible to make a broad judgement about either software solution.

For Windows, you have option of single 2 in 1 mobile device.

Pushing Windows, strangely omitting that most people looking at getting an iPad Pro likely already have a desktop workstation, so pushing a 2 in 1 as a work station seems strange, and also seems very intentional in a thread about iPads.

What are you, using it in your arm? Just use Windows 10 like Windows 10. No need to use it as a touch only OS lol.

Projecting your experience on other users to denigrate their preferences / experiences. It still stands to reason that Windows 10 is objectively not optimized for a touch interface, so a user preferring a touch interface would obviously be more at home on an OS designed with a native touch UI. Your response reflects your own preferences, not what the user was interested in discussing.

So use the damn pen instead of a mouse. I don't get the issue. Do you also complain about using Cintiq on Windows 10 and OSX? lol

Excuses for Windows, discarding user opinion. "Don't get the issue" doesn't resolve the users poor experience, just puts yourself on a pedestal.

I'm an industrial designer so I use Photoshop differently than you do. However, I have friends who do large scale graphics so I know the requirements of say doing 12 feet tall poster or something of that scale. They all use desktops to do their jobs. Many now use iMacs and iMac Pros but those are still desktops with capability for 64GB of RAM or more.

You know the requirements, yet completely omit that a project like this is not only possible on the new iPad Pros, but in most cases, exceptionally easy (no lag, responsive, etc).


So when you say you aren't in here being dishonest or arguing in bad faith, you'll have to excuse me while I roll my eyes and call you for your bullshit. Similarly to the last thread, I'm done with the conversation because you aren't trying to have one. You're trying to push your own preferred platforms over others, while discounting user experiences and omitting key information to give your own positions more slant.
 

badcrumble

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,745
Even the Xr's CPU puts that of the MB/MBA to shame. Need that x86 compatibility on OS X, though (for now).
I think one huge change of the web-focused/mobile-app-focused world is that x86 matters less and less every year (ESPECIALLY when stuff like Microsoft Word and the Adobe Creative Suite have already been ported to iOS).

I feel like it'd mainly be an issue when it comes to Mac gaming and... Apple doesn't give a fuck about gaming, lol. Even there, I suspect that anything compiled for Metal APIs would be largely fine; most professional app developers and enough game developers for Apple's tastes see the writing on the wall about ARM vs. x86 and are already making moves to be ready for that transition.

I honestly think that the Intel->ARM transition for the Mac would be smoother and easier than the PPC -> Intel transition was (and that one was pretty damn easy).

Except for people who dual-boot, of course, who would be shit out of luck.
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
User Warned - Antagonizing Member
This post suggests that Photoshop CC on iOS cannot handle "huge files professionally". False. It can, and has (during a live stream, no less). For most projects, Photoshop CC on iOS will have no problems working.



This omits Adobe Sensei functionality, which is being used more and more by Adobe to offload computational tasks to cloud computing, thus allowing under powered devices to still be feature complete. You also have not used Photoshop CC on iOS, so I'm not sure how you know, definitively, what it can and cannot do comparatively to Desktops, or what those speed comparisons are. You also don't know the differences in memory management or program overhead, and how certain features will work between the two versions. This is a baseless assumption, at best, on your part.

Objectively, a powerful desktop will always be the most powerful and flexible option. However, that does not mean that they are not at all comparable in functionality or capability for most tasks, just that a desktop workstation can handle more heavy lifting for very specific tasks and situations. Until we have side by side comparisons for both under the same workload conditions, it is not possible to make a broad judgement about either software solution.



Pushing Windows, strangely omitting that most people looking at getting an iPad Pro likely already have a desktop workstation, so pushing a 2 in 1 as a work station seems strange, and also seems very intentional in a thread about iPads.



Projecting your experience on other users to denigrate their preferences / experiences. It still stands to reason that Windows 10 is objectively not optimized for a touch interface, so a user preferring a touch interface would obviously be more at home on an OS designed with a native touch UI. Your response reflects your own preferences, not what the user was interested in discussing.



Excuses for Windows, discarding user opinion. "Don't get the issue" doesn't resolve the users poor experience, just puts yourself on a pedestal.



You know the requirements, yet completely omit that a project like this is not only possible on the new iPad Pros, but in most cases, exceptionally easy (no lag, responsive, etc).


So when you say you aren't in here being dishonest or arguing in bad faith, you'll have to excuse me while I roll my eyes and call you for your bullshit. Similarly to the last thread, I'm done with the conversation because you aren't trying to have one. You're trying to push your own preferred platforms over others, while discounting user experiences and omitting key information to give your own positions more slant.
Dude, I was only half joking about you being batshit crazy. You don't have go full batshit and prove me right like this holy fucking shit! :D
 

phonicjoy

Banned
Jun 19, 2018
4,305
It means that for single core, A12X matching Intel's 8th gen mobile i7 8750H, and closely matching the multicore performance as well (8 vs 6 but even though A12X has 2 more than i7, only 4 are performance cores) in thin chassis devices.

This is especially close in iPad Pro vs MacBook Pros because the i7 in MBP can't even get to the max speed. A12X in iPad Pro can't maintain top speed too long either probably, but it can reach the top clock speed in that chassis at least. And this is the crux of why Intel will be replaced in MBP in 2020 with A12X successor: Intel's processors need better cooling than MBP chassis can provide to perform well.

I would be interested to see iPad Pro 2018 benchmarks to see how much it throttles under load. 10 billion transistors is a lot to cool, even if it's 7nm...

The main reason is that Intel is slow to deliver the parts Apple needs, not only for the laptops, also for the desktop. Not because the thermal design in Macs is that bad.
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
The main reason is that Intel is slow to deliver the parts Apple needs, not only for the laptops, also for the desktop. Not because the thermal design in Macs is that bad.
Well... It's more like Apple wants thinner and thinner designs and Intel processors have no business being in those kind of chassis thermally.

Like it or not. Apple is setting the trend fir laptop chassis design and Intel processors were simply not well suited for passive cooled settings.
 

UltraMagnus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
15,670
So I mean do these benchmarks back up their claim that the A12X can deliver gaming performance on par with an XBox One S?
 

Joule

Member
Nov 19, 2017
4,288
So I mean do these benchmarks back up their claim that the A12X can deliver gaming performance on par with an XBox One S?
When Apple brought up the xbox they were speaking about GPU performance; they were saying their GPUs are as capable as an X1S's. The CPUs in these things are several times more powerful than the CPUs in the PS4/Xbox1 and Pro/XboxX.

edit: lol beaten
 

8byte

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,880
Kansas
So I mean do these benchmarks back up their claim that the A12X can deliver gaming performance on par with an XBox One S?

I wouldn't read much into that claim, as it's likely just a "raw math" claim, more so than them actually having run games of similar demanding nature. Don't expect RDR2 on an iPad anytime soon.
 

UltraMagnus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
15,670
I wouldn't read much into that claim, as it's likely just a "raw math" claim, more so than them actually having run games of similar demanding nature. Don't expect RDR2 on an iPad anytime soon.

They were running NBA2K19 at 60 fps at full screen resolution (about 5.5 million pixels, that's waaaay above 1080p) though.

I mean technically I'm thinking this chip could run RDR2. It won't ever happen because Apple won't allow like a 100GB download or whatever and there's not real track record for $60 iPad games.

But from a technical level, I'm thinking this chip could run RDR2 (not at full screen res, but 900p-1080p ... yeah probably).
 
Last edited:

8byte

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,880
Kansas
They were running NBA2K19 at 60 fps at full screen resolution (about 5.5 million pixels, that's waaaay above 1080p) though.

I mean technically I'm thinking this chip could run RDR2. It won't ever happen because Apple won't allow like a 100GB download or whatever and there's not real track record for $60 iPad games.

But from a technical level, I'm thinking this chip could run RDR2 (not at full screen res, but 900p-1080p ... yeah probably).

Well, I don't know if NBA 2K is the best example for demand though. It's not going to be as resource heavy as something that has an open world or larger environment with bigger draw distances. That's not to say it isn't impressive to achieve what they did visually on such a small device, I just don't think it's realistic for anyone to really push those kind of visuals on an iPad Pro. Even smaller when you consider how tiny that user base will be (since basically anything developed to push that envelope won't run well on older devices).

A cool stat and it certainly has some application for horsepower and other apps, but gaming isn't gonna be one of them.

I agree with you though, that it's very capable, though I think the memory limitation is the biggest bottleneck here.
 

UltraMagnus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
15,670
Well, I don't know if NBA 2K is the best example for demand though. It's not going to be as resource heavy as something that has an open world or larger environment with bigger draw distances. That's not to say it isn't impressive to achieve what they did visually on such a small device, I just don't think it's realistic for anyone to really push those kind of visuals on an iPad Pro. Even smaller when you consider how tiny that user base will be (since basically anything developed to push that envelope won't run well on older devices).

A cool stat and it certainly has some application for horsepower and other apps, but gaming isn't gonna be one of them.

I agree with you though, that it's very capable, though I think the memory limitation is the biggest bottleneck here.

Granted NBA2K is maybe not the most taxing game, still it's running at a whopping 2732-by-2048 resolution, which is more than 2.5x the pixels of the 1080p resolution it runs on XBox One S. And it's doing that at 60 frames per second.

RAM bandwidth might be a problem, but maybe not.

RDR2 certainly is a more complex game, but running it at say 1080p would be a monstrous drop in the amount of pixels the chip has to push from NBA2K.

I think Apple's claims may not be far off on this at all, if something can run on an XBox One S, it probably can run on this chip.
 
Last edited:

Pwnz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,279
Places
- Performance (when given enough cooling - so none mobile devices)
- Software support
- Better scale-ability for core count (smaller transistor count per core)

For ultra thin and light mobile devices, X86 is hosed, but for larger devices (desktop replacement laptops and desktops) it will still outperform ARM.

But that's been the way for years anyways.

I suspect Intel has been developing a new microarchitecture for several years. Silicon is on its last legs. We will probably see new materials soon and with it new architectures. I'm eager for this to happen because if there's a breakthrough with new materials it'll be like the 80s and 90s again with computers getting obsolete within 2 years. With a theoretical graphene design we'd see annual revisions jumping up by the GHz.
 

Hero

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,957
Man..I'm super tempted to sell my Surface 4 Pro and get one of these.

Guessing no BF deals for these.
 

SnakeXs

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,111
Beastly power is shining some beautiful light on the iOS horizon. Keep swimming against the current, salmon. I see where this river's flowing.
 

Thraktor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
571
A12X has double the performance cores, much bigger GPU and is in a chassis that is far far larger than iPhone X Max. It will clock higher and maintain that clock longer. I think 15W in that chassis in bursts is reasonable expectations.

Clocks should only be ~5% higher than the A12, judging by the Geekbench scores and prior X-series SoCs from Apple. And yes, it likely peaks higher with the GPU thrown in, but once again the same is true for Intel's chips.

None of this detracts from my point in any way, though, that Apple's A-series chips are now both competitive in performance, and vastly superior in power consumption, to the Intel CPUs they use in their laptops. As a simple example, I just ran though Geekbench on the laptop I'm writing this on, which uses an m3-7Y30, which is a 5W TDP chip (it's a slightly older model, but their new ones use almost identical cores on an almost identical process). Using Intel Power Gadget, I measured a peak power consumption of 8.57W during the run, with scores of 3089 single core and 5917 multi-core. So that's double the power consumption over the A12 for a little over half the performance.

With Moore's law slowing down, I'm not really comfortable with how Apple is increasing the performance of ARM: via sheer transistor count. 10 billion dwarfs Intel's mobile Core i7/i9 by several billion.

Fairly soon, it will be too costly to keep doubling transistor count every 18 months, and then soon after that, physics will get in the way of making smaller transistors.

Apple are certainly benefiting from the big increase in transistor density of 7nm, but comparing transistor count between Apple's SoCs and Intel's Coffee Lake chips isn't really appropriate when we're considering CPU performance, as Apple devote far more of their dies to GPUs/NPUs and other components. Look at the A12 compared to a six-core Coffee Lake chip:

A12_575px.jpg


975px-coffee_lake_die_%28hexa_core%29_%28annotated%29.png


We can actually make some rough estimates on transistor count from these. If we assume uniform transistor density, the big A12 cores (incl L2, but excluding L3 and bus) at 3.96mm2 come to about 328 million transistors apiece. Intel don't publish transistor counts any more, but they have said that their 10nm process is 2.7 times more dense than 14nm at 100.8 million transistors per mm2, which would put 14nm at about 37 million per mm2, and the Coffee Lake cores (again incl L2 but without L3 or the interconnect) at about 307 million transistors. Of course these are very rough estimates, but there isn't a world of difference between them.

I think you're taking what I said the wrong way. These numbers basically are saying that the iPad is just shy of an Intel i9-7940x. I guess I'm getting hung up on real life vs. benchmark life when people say Apple should go to ARM for the laptops, etc, when none of these numbers show anything what their ARM cpu would do under MacOS, software usage, new code adoption, etc. That's my point. When you compare the numbers against a like by like system, then that means a lot more than what I mean by "faux comparison".

I think people overestimate the difference between iOS and macOS when it comes to performance. They run on the same kernel and a large proportion of the software stack is the same across both OSs. The user interface is obviously very different, but that's no reason to assume that there would be meaningful performance differences between the two when running the same software.
 

phonicjoy

Banned
Jun 19, 2018
4,305
Well... It's more like Apple wants thinner and thinner designs and Intel processors have no business being in those kind of chassis thermally.

Like it or not. Apple is setting the trend fir laptop chassis design and Intel processors were simply not well suited for passive cooled settings.

They had the same issue with the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro though. Xeon parts were delayed, and certain mobile suitable i7's. This was a few years back.
 

Char

Member
Dec 9, 2017
193
It will be interesting to see if Anandtech will run their relatively more respected (Compared to Geekbench) and more thorough SPEC2006 benchmark on these new iPads. They had this to say after running SPEC2006 benchmark tests on the XS:
What is quite astonishing, is just how close Apple's A11 and A12 are to current desktop CPUs. I haven't had the opportunity to run things in a more comparable manner, but taking our server editor, Johan De Gelas' recent figures from earlier this summer, we see that the A12 outperforms a moderately-clocked Skylake CPU in single-threaded performance. Of course there's compiler considerations and various frequency concerns to take into account, but still we're now talking about very small margins until Apple's mobile SoCs outperform the fastest desktop CPUs in terms of ST performance. It will be interesting to get more accurate figures on this topic later on in the coming months.
 
Last edited:

Gunship

Member
Oct 28, 2017
431
When they say it's the "full" Photoshop, does that include video editing, 3D, smart objects, actions, batch processing, and artboards?
 

Ninjadom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,213
London, UK
Apple console would get murdered due to price since
- A12X with say 6TF GPU would be like 15 billion+ transistors.
- Apple does not sell things at low margins.

If you want $700 gaming console then Apple might be willing to accommodate.

Couldn't they use the A10X instead with increased clock speeds? There'd be no battery to worry about.
 

Thraktor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
571
Couldn't they use the A10X instead with increased clock speeds? There'd be no battery to worry about.

They already have an A10X-powered "game console", it's the Apple TV 4K.

I don't think hardware was ever the problem with Apple getting into the games console business. They just don't think the costs (loss-leading hardware, investment in first-party studios) are worthwhile to compete with Sony and MS in the AAA games market. They already have a huge segment of the gaming market with the iPhone, and they're better off trying to expand on that than trying to jump into a higher-risk, lower-reward segment.
 

phonicjoy

Banned
Jun 19, 2018
4,305
Apple console would get murdered due to price since
- A12X with say 6TF GPU would be like 15 billion+ transistors.
- Apple does not sell things at low margins.

If you want $700 gaming console then Apple might be willing to accommodate.

Thats not how that works. R&D, tooling, and other fixed costs will be the bulk of total costs. The more products and volume you can spread those out over, the cheaper they can get with the same margins.

Anyways I don't think the margins on SOC's are going to be an issue, they're already producing more of those than any other manufacturer of other SOC's I would assume.
 
Last edited:

Snake Eater

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,385
More meaning less scores, we get it that the iPad is powerful, but the iOS and it's extreme limitations remain the same. That has always been the tragic flaw of the device
 

StuBurns

Self Requested Ban
Banned
Nov 12, 2017
7,273
More meaning less scores, we get it that the iPad is powerful, but the iOS and it's extreme limitations remain the same. That has always been the tragic flaw of the device
I don't understand what's meaningless about it? You mean who cares how powerful it is if it doesn't serve a specific feature you want? The iPad sells extremely well, so clearly most tablet and portable computer users don't share your concern, and presumably, they do still care about performance.
 

Snake Eater

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,385
I don't understand what's meaningless about it? You mean who cares how powerful it is if it doesn't serve a specific feature you want? The iPad sells extremely well, so clearly most tablet and portable computer users don't share your concern, and presumably, they do still care about performance.

iPad sell well because they are a great media consumption device and literally the only tablet on the market worth getting. Apple advertises the iPad Pro is a personal computer replacement, which it is not
 

StuBurns

Self Requested Ban
Banned
Nov 12, 2017
7,273
iPad sell well because they are a great media consumption device and literally the only tablet on the market worth getting. Apple advertises the iPad Pro is a personal computer replacement, which it is not
Do they? I watched the conference announcing it, and at no point did they say that. They said it is a personal computer however, but they didn't specify the Pro, just the iPad in general.

For me, it's not a comparable computing experience, but it depends on the use case of the individual.
 

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
PCs sold well because they are a great productivity device and literally the only productivity devices on the market worth getting. Now PC manufacturers advertise PCs as playing games and watching media, which they're not
Hmm.. sound familiar?

The beautiful thing about computing is that it evolves, and pointing out assumed limitations or use cases of a device (iPad Pro 11) that isn't even out yet is disingenuous.

There have been numerous limiting factors over the years preventing iPad and iOS from being a truly productive (i.e. creation) based device. Speed/performance, resolution, ability to share proprietary content, and frankly developer support for productivity tools (not helped by the most prominent productivity tools being owned by direct competitors, but I digress).

The point being, with normal advancement in technology these limiting factors have been disappearing, and as we are now seeing, the BIGGEST of these factors.. lack of developer support of production tools, is beginning to disappear as well.

I'm not saying you're wrong on what the iPad has traditionally been. You nailed it. But the kit that apple has stuffed into the 2018 Pros is insane.. and software devs of productivity software see the writing on the wall. They have to start the transition to mobile now (and everything that has to be figured out to make it equatable), because while workstations will always have their place in business, all of consumers and much of day to day business users will be using mobile devices as their primary computers. Including the productivity angle. It's the EXACT reason you've seen so much productivity switch to HTML5, and why you are now seeing Adobe and Autodesk putting full blown versions on iOS. Mobile won't meet every use case need... but if it hits 85% of them.. you can't leave that money on the table.
 

Masterz1337

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,859
Wouldn't such a device kick the ass off all current consoles? Kind of weird that you isolated the Switch.

I isolated the switch because both a hypothetical iGame and switch would be using mobile chips and share similar architecture. Apple also has the tech to compete with it on mobile tech compared to Sony and Microsoft who don't really do mobile devices to the same extent as apple and Nintendo.
 

StuBurns

Self Requested Ban
Banned
Nov 12, 2017
7,273
I don't understand your point. It shows the stuff it does, the neighbor identifies it as a computer, which Apple considers it to be. Even if you take 'What's a computer?' to mean he literally isn't aware of traditional desktops/laptops, it would just mean he's never been tasked to do something they require, which is entirely likely given he's a child. The things iPads can't really do, database stuff, heavy spreadsheet work, programming/compiling, is stuff most children don't do. It's still stuff most adults don't do either.

That ad doesn't say the iPad is the only computer you'll ever need, and it would be insane for them to say that, as they sell traditional computers.