The iPhone 5S is based on Apple’s own 64-bit ARM A7 System on a Chip (SoC). This is a major step up in raw processing power.
Biometric authentication requires a significant amount of CPU horsepower to pull off without being sluggish, as would strong end-to-end VPN encryption, both of which are likely necessary for the iPhone to continue to attract corporate attention.
The inclusion of so much horsepower is more than just a nice win for the iPhone line. It’s also a win for the next iPad, as well as a sign that iOS platforms are stepping up in class, rivaling desktop machines and game consoles. More fodder for the folks who champion the opinion that we’ll someday see a convergence of the iOS and Mac OS X platforms. Personally, I don’t see that happening any time soon. I love my MacBook Pro and can’t imagine using my iPad or iPhone in the same way. But I do see the possibility of that changing over time.
This new 64-bit “desktop-class” chip coupled with the 17 watt charging adapter leaks point pretty hard to a new category of iOS device that has a larger battery than the current iPads and needs (or can make use of) desktop-level performance. I am increasingly convinced there will be an iOS based notebook in the not too distant future.
And the end of work-aimed Apple products as we know it? I don’t think they’ll cut out any time soon.
Is there any app that needs this much power, or did they throw it in there just in case they thought of something good for iOS 8 and beyond?
32 bit virtual address space is 4 GB, so extending that gives speed up benefits( address can be load/stored in fewer cycles) and allows apps to index more memory, and more immediately a benefit — apps can stay resident in memory. i.e. better multitasking..
did you watch the Infinity Blade demo? those guys said theyre able to use the processing power today for many tasks. they were stoked. i think beyond memory limitations the increased CPU is offering useful computing benefits for intensive tasks…
To be fair that’s what they said last year
I don’t doubt for a second that Apple will begin making their own processors for their laptops – and eventually desktops one day. I do doubt we’re going to see a convergence of OS X and iOS until someone can determine what sort of problem that would solve. Look how that sort of convergence has worked for Windows. As of right now, the only reason anyone has come up with to merge desktop and mobile is because they can.
This can’t be the reason for 64-bit on iOS at this point. I’m not sure how much RAM the 5s has … I would guess it probably has 2GB. I doubt very much that it would have more than 4GB.
My guess is that 64-bit and the extra horse-power is necessary for the fingerprint processing and extra camera features. Games will probably also benefit, although I would have thought that most of the game computations would be in the GPU.
Intel is (finally!) doing a good job of reducing power consumption in its processors, so I’m not sure there is much of an advantage for Apple to use their own processors for laptops (other than cost? Intel processors are still quite pricey).
With the new Macbook Air, I got the impression that the screen now consumes more power than the processor. Once the processor is no longer the bottle neck, you get a lot less benefits in reducing power further.
Key word tylernol said was “virtual” address space. 64-bit will have implications for physical RAM, yes. But it also will have implications for virtual memory.
This will have significant effects on memory management in the system, with or without a boost in physical RAM.
Doesn’t virtual address space imply paging? I’m pretty sure that iOS does not allow paging (apps that would get paged on in OSX are simply terminated in iOS).
apps on iOS are “asked” to free up heap memory when they use too much, if they do not, they are terminated.
No true convergence of operating systems, perhaps, but it would be nice if OS X would be able to run iOS apps in the future. 🙂 At least devs can now code for and assume 64-bitness on both platforms.
The real problem there is UI.
(After all, you can run iOS apps in OSX right now, in Apple’s emulator that comes with XCode, can’t you?
In my experience as a professional programmer, bit width on the CPU isn’t something most software cares a whole lot about in terms of needing a rewrite – rather than a recompile – to handle.)
A lot of handwaving in that article.
“Strong end-to-end VPN encryption” doesn’t need a 64-bit CPU, it just needs an encryption accelerator, which has been standard issue on a variety of embedded CPUs for years. I’d be surprised if the A4 didn’t have one.
I can’t really speak to the computing demands of biometric authentication, but given that the search space is going to be limited to maybe a dozen fingerprints, tops, it is a far more manageable problem than, say, picking out a couple suspected terrorists against the millions of people who travel through airports every day.
There are much more mundane reasons for releasing a 64bit chip now. First and foremost, is the fact that they will need one someday. This has nothing to do with platform convergence or using them in future Mac laptops. It’s just down to the march of progress in technology with Moore’s law as the prime mover. In a generation or two, they’ll need more than 4GB of RAM and when that point comes, hacks like those used on x86 would be a waste of time.
Given that iOS is going to be a 64bit platform soon, its a matter of balancing the reasons its good to start now against those arguing for putting it off until later.
There are many factors in favor. A 64-bit address space allows memory mapping of much larger “files” in the flash storage, which is already well over 4GB. It may help with security tactics, like address space randomization. It also lets developers start transitioning to 64-bit code now. A lot of the developers who will benefit are at Apple, because it means they can start retiring algorithms and data structures designed for 32-bit systems, in favor of 64-bit versions that are also used in OS X. Going 64-bit now also means that their semiconductor design team can invest effort in supporting a modern up-to-date instruction set, rather than the decade-old ISA in use to this point.
The strikes against going 64-bit now basically come down to cost and power consumption, and it seems that neither was a particularly significant concern.
This isn’t to say that Apple didn’t need a faster CPU to stay competitive, but for the most part, that chip could just as easily been 32-bit. It also doesn’t rule out the intriguing possibility that this chip finds its way into entirely new class of product in the near future.
This is great analysis https://www.quora.com/Apple-Secure-Enclave/What-is-Apple’s-new-Secure-Enclave-and-why-is-it-important/answer/Brian-Roemmele