Apple A7 chip specs and details surface
The Cyclone processor core: unprecedented width
Before we get into the technicalities, let’s mention that all new Apple smartphones and tablets (the iPhone 5s, iPad Air and iPad mini with Retina) are powered by the Apple A7 chip. What’s a bit surprising with Apple’s choice of silicon is that all three new Apple devices actually feature the the exact same modification of the chip, the S5L8960X.
However, this chip does not perform equally on a tablet and on a phone. The larger space and better cooling possibilities of a tablet allow Apple to run the A7 Cyclone processing core at higher speeds. While the iPhone 5s features a dual-core chip that runs at up to 1.3GHz, the iPad Air uses the same dual-core chip but now at speeds of up to 1.4GHz.
What’s more interesting is that under heavy load, the iPhone 5s hits peak speeds for a few moments and then drops back to 900MHz, that’s Apple’s throttle here and it’s implemented to keep heating in check and battery life reasonable. On the iPad Air a throttle also kicks in, but it downsized the clock speeds to the much higher 1.2GHz. This means that under heavier loads, the iPad Air could perform up to 40% faster than the iPhone 5s, but not less than some 8% better.
Apple A7 comes with lower power consumption
In real life testing, the iPad Air proves to be a battery-thrifty chip dropping down to 4 watts in less intensive tasks and still less than 5 watts in games like Infinity Blade. While peak power could theoretically reach as high as nearly 12 watts compared to up to 8 watts on previous iPads, real-life usage shows that the power drain actually averages to somewhere around 4 to 5 watts. So even though the Air is well capable of eating out battery quicker, in reality it is more power-savvy than earlier iPads.
All of this comes as Apple has decreased significantly the battery size. The iPad Air features a 32.4Wh battery, down from a 42.5Wh one on the iPad 3rd and 4th generations.
Now - somewhat surprisingly - having a smaller battery might actually be a good thing for an iPad. The tablet ships with a 12W charger and the large battery in earlier iPads meant that the device took an excruciatingly long nearly 6 hours to recharge. This drops to around 4 hours on the iPad Air, still not as fast as one would like, but definitely a more reasonable time frame.
1. WHoyton1 (Posts: 1635; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
lovely chip! Now lets see it on a platform that can utilise it!
3. tech2 (Posts: 2437; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
+1. What's the point of such a powerful chip if they can't make it record true 720p in slo-mo videos....smh !
12. Shatter (Posts: 2031; Member since: 29 May 2013)
Better looking games is about all that makes sense for these chips.
17. tech2 (Posts: 2437; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
No point in running 'better looking games' if it has to run in 4 inch non-HD display !
19. papss (unregistered)
What about the air?
26. DukeX (Posts: 327; Member since: 28 Aug 2013)
Forget the air. This is a phone we are talking about. Full HD isn't really needed but if apple wants to compete then they need to implement in. We cant hold on to retina displays forever...
21. eldyagustius (Posts: 147; Member since: 30 Oct 2013)
I was satisfied with the only 4" display.. for me it's not a big deal.. this is a smartphone, not gaming phone.. probably if you look for the better looking games only by its screen size, go buy a tab or maybe even a PS4 with the Full HD TV.. you gone wrong if you want to find that experience only on smartphone :)
22. tech2 (Posts: 2437; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
'I was satisfied with the only 4" display' ....Good for you. But the world prefers 5" displays over 4" that doesn't mean the entire world is being unreasonable because u don't find it plausible.
'for me it's not a big deal' - sounds like you are compromising and compromises should not be made for a $800 dollar phone (UK off-contract)
'you gone wrong if you want to find that experience only on smartphone' - I am not gone wrong. Those requirements I mentioned are currently available on all 2013 android models.
Seems like someone is living in denial :)
32. bigstrudel (Posts: 518; Member since: 20 Aug 2012)
Some people don't like large devices. You do. You dont speak for what the rest of the world wants. Some people prefer pockettable devices that are comfortable to hold and easy to slip into and carry around in any size pocket without feeling it at all.
33. PapaSmurf (Posts: 8922; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Moto X is basically the size of the iPhone 5S and has a 0.7" larger screen. Your comment is 70% invalid.
35. bigstrudel (Posts: 518; Member since: 20 Aug 2012)
The Moto X is 7mm wider than the iPhone.
Thats the almost same width difference and in hand feel as going from a Galaxy S4 to a Note 3.
Furthermore. The Moto X is not the rule. Its the exception. I love what Google's vision of an Android device should be. Almost bought a Moto X myself.
38. tech2 (Posts: 2437; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
I am not speaking for the rest of the world but the world itself is. There is a reason why all other manufacturers Samsung, LG, Sony, HTC, Oppo, Lenovo, ZTE, etc. except Apple have a 5" device. Its because the world is demanding so ! And the proof is they are selling well. So its not wrong for me to say the world is prefering towards 5" devices.
And PapSmurf's reply#33 was directed towards your 'pockettable devices' statement. He meant to say several other devices have larger displays and yet are only marginally bigger than iPhones.
i.e. 0.7mm doesn't make a phone 'unpockettable' but 0.7" is a welcome screen bump.
Stop believing Apple's BS !
18. papss (unregistered)
Which is standard for apple. Say what you want but the games do run better on my ipad 4 than any I've had before.
24. tech2 (Posts: 2437; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
Even though I am a big Android fan I'll admit iPad 4/air is better than any tablets out there (factoring out the price that is).
But, often when I use my mate's iPad 4, I've found the graphically intensive games crashes a lot. I frequently encountered that when playing injustice.
31. bigstrudel (Posts: 518; Member since: 20 Aug 2012)
Yeah because Slo-Mo resolution is an absolute deal breaker for me. They probably curbed it for power draw or thermal purposes anyways. The iPhone is an extremely space constrained device. Its not a mobile TV like Android flagships. There will be sacrifices here and there.
36. bigstrudel (Posts: 518; Member since: 20 Aug 2012)
Elaborate? Or stick with baseless comment? Your call.
42. fteoOpty64 (Posts: 8; Member since: 19 Mar 2013)
"if they can't make it record true 720p". This is a limitation of the camera module/capture chip rather than the SoC. Small and cheap camera modules do not have the size nor power and quality of camcorder camera modules. You can see why no cell phone camera can beat a Go-Pro Hero 3 camera module!. Anyone would love to have such a camera in their phone!.
30. GeekyGene (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Aug 2013)
"Now lets see it on a platform that can utilise it!"
It's on the *perfect* platform to utilize it actually.
5. mr.techdude (Posts: 555; Member since: 19 Nov 2012)
Ohhhhh Apple u make me cry when u innovate a chip that can reach 1.4 ghz, ouhhhh, 2.3 ghz is not fast at all no lets go with 1.4 ghz.
All jokes aside but I have to admit when it comes to speeds for gaming and most apps nothing beats ipads and iPhones (coming from an android fan). No matter if android devices have 2.3 ghz the iPad air will beat that in real life performance. Imagine a 2ghz apple chip. GOD DAMN!!!!
7. Reality_Check (Posts: 277; Member since: 15 Aug 2013)
ARMv8 (A7 1.3GHz) vs ARMv7 (S800 2.3GHz) I think.... Not sure though :/
8. Reality_Check (Posts: 277; Member since: 15 Aug 2013)
Still not sure what the benefit is :S
11. gixxerrider311 (Posts: 25; Member since: 14 Mar 2012)
It's kinda like with AMD vs Intel CPU's, AMD advertises their chips to be quad core but in real time performance an i3 will outperform the A6 even though it's only a dual core. Apple really did an awesome job with their A7 chip.
13. TylerGrunter (Posts: 1057; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
The problem with your desire is that it's unreal. As it is built in 28nm if you clock that beast higher it would heat too much. To go higher in clock speed they would need to go lower in the node scale> 20 or even 16nm.
They have done enough by creating a chip that can go against the lower Haswel core of intel (that are built on 22nm)
And I actually find that chipset is GOOD NEWS for Android too, as it will (hopefully) stop the stupid trend of "more cores is better" and will start the trend "BETTER cores are better" as far as you have at least 2 of them.
25. brrunopt (Posts: 552; Member since: 15 Aug 2013)
its not about ghz but consuption, that A7 at only 1.4Ghz is taking almost as much power as the S800 at 2.3Ghz.
An A7 at 2.3Ghz would consume a gigantic amount of power...
28. GeekyGene (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Aug 2013)
"Ohhhhh Apple u make me cry when u innovate a chip that can reach 1.4 ghz, ouhhhh, 2.3 ghz is not fast at all no lets go with 1.4 ghz."
6. cc3493 (Posts: 155; Member since: 06 Jul 2013)
I wish they would place a bigger battery in. With that efficiency and low power consumption + a bigger battery, that is gonna be a super long lasting phone and smash out all the competition in regards to battery length.
9. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5951; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
A bigger battery would make the tablet heavier. The Air is all about thin and light. Can't have thin and light with a bigger battery. Check back next year for a bigger battery.
39. theoak (Posts: 320; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
It appears Apple's goal was 1 pound. They put the largest battery they could in it as long as it was under 1 pound.
With that being said ... most all the various benchmarks (browsing, video, hot spot, etc) all show greater time use than the iPad 4, even thought the Air's battery is around 25% less. That is pretty impressive.
Also, with a 25% smaller batter, that also means 25% less time to wait for a full complete charge. Assuming 10 hours of usage that gives you around a 1:2.5 ratio. Charge for 1 hour, get 2.5 hours (in some cases more - like video for example) of use.
20. eldyagustius (Posts: 147; Member since: 30 Oct 2013)
do not compare to the Android smartphones and tablets which only has the bigger capacity battery.. realize that the android OS consume more..
10. sum182 (Posts: 229; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)
So they have DDR3 RAM now instead of DDR2.....nice. Not buying one though.
15. user996 (Posts: 193; Member since: 25 Feb 2013)
L3 Cache 4MB? ?? LoL i have 6MB in my core i7
16. PapaSmurf (Posts: 8922; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Re-read your comment and think if comparing an i7 to A7 was a smart idea.
29. GeekyGene (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Aug 2013)
lul 1GB of RAM. My PC has 16GB of RAM! iPad sux!!!
Oh PA, is this what your comment sections have become? ._.
37. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4108; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
Lel my core i5 has a 6 MB L3 cache to and 8 times more RAM than the silly ipad, apple ur ded cuz u dont have the specs of a modern day pc lel.
23. kami70b (Posts: 2; Member since: 30 Oct 2013)
Qualcomm has also started working on a 64 bit processor. In start, thy said there is nothing so special about 64 bit processor but now they admit that apple has done the right thing by putting 64 bit chip in iphone 5s
40. theoak (Posts: 320; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
Qualcomm may not care as they do not build an OS. Same with Samsung to a degree.
Apple however has developers for Mac, and developers for iOS. Now imagine developing a Mac app and not having to do a special build or tweaking for an iOS version of that app. Your application now "just works" on both platforms. Your application can no go cross platforms ... and you have just increased your income potential ... gobs ;) From a developer perspective that is huge. It works the other way now too ... build an iOS app and you instantly have a Mac app also.
I see 64bit as more about Apple simplifying its OSes.
41. fteoOpty64 (Posts: 8; Member since: 19 Mar 2013)
"there is nothing so special about 64 bit processor" True is you refer to Intel. But NOT true for Arm architecture. The difference is night and day for Arm since it has a pure instruction set and its 64bit designs are between 20% to 30% faster at running Arm32 code. Contrast this with 5% for Intel arch!. Why is this you ask ? Well, X86-64 was invented by AMD and cross license back to Intel. Back then Intel "could not do it" and went with itanium that uses LWiV 64 architecture that is completely different from x86 and not compatible. So x86-64 is a hybrid extension with the requirement for full 32-bit compatibility. Aarch64 by Arm is a pure 64bit design.
Think of this as comparing a 4-cylinder car to a V8 design. I-4 is straight cylinders in straight row while V8 is Vee config four on each side. If one evolve a straight 4cylinder to straight 8 design, the engine becomes too long!
It is why BMW has a I-6 design in their older 2.5 liter and 3 liter engines. It is long but not too long to fit. Yet gives great power output and smoothness.