By: Anon (no.delete@this.email.com), April 4, 2017 4:15 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Brett (ggtgp.delete@this.yahoo.com) on January 28, 2017 3:33 pm wrote:
> NickK (redhavoc.delete@this.yahoo.co.uk) on January 23, 2017 2:36 pm wrote:
> > > It's all very well analysing the docs you reference but in this
> > > case, there is a much easier way to get the information.
> > >
> > > http://www.anandtech.com/show/8706/imagination-announces-powervr-series7-gpus-series7xt-series7xe
> >
> > From what I understand Apple has most, if not all, of the software development in house. A GPU being a
> > difficult beast on its own I would not be surprised if ImgTech
> > supplies some of the very low level interfacing
> > software/driver of the GPU and Apple creates all the clever stuff on top (driver/compiler).
> >
> > Concerning the GPU hirings that Apple has done until recently,
> > they were always high level architects/managers
> > rather than people doing the dirty work of implementing a GPU. I would not be surprised if they were giving
> > a direction in the software teams, and deciding the special 'ingredients' they wanted in their hardware.
> > Similar to what Sony/Microsoft have done to their latest generation consoles with AMD.
>
> OMG, you must be a PC guy and think Apple would CLONE an existing NVidea/AMD decade old now obsolete
> design. Thus Apple would need a bunch of mid-level and low level employees from NVidea/AMD.
Its NVidia.. come on, thats not too hard is it?
>
> Was the Macintosh a CP/M clone just like DOS? Was the Apple disk controller a copy of a typical disk
> controller? Was the iPad just like Windows Mobile? Was the iPhone just a clone of a flip phone?
The Apple II was somewhat similar to a CP/M clone.. or did you forget where Apple started?
The IPhone was similar to a number of pre-existing touchscreen PDA phones, especially at first before Apple were forced to open up development.
The iPad was just a but iPhone without the radio.
Really not seeing your point here.. Are you trying to say that Apple only create products that are clean-sheet new, every time? History would appear to make such an argument laughable.
> Wavefront technology is not efficient, it was just least worst when dealing with memory
> that is ~80 cycles away. The iPad Pro is the only iDevice that renders from ram, all the
> other iDevices render from L3 cache. One huge massively ported cache that is far away
> is not great either, something crazy like distributed ram could work really well.
My, you are confused.. hint: Caches are good, but not some magick GPU secret sauce.. Many GPU loads dont come near to fitting in ANY currect cache, even if you just look at the pixel buffers (which is much much more than just framebuffers, fwiw).
> When/if Apple produces a GPU it will hit you like Apple's 64 bit ARM, you will look at
> the performance and die size and thermals and you will go WHAT THE F*CK IS THAT!?!
I suggest its time to cut down on the koolaid there buckaroo.. Apples 64bit arm was certainly a good bit of work, but I dont think many people in the real world reacted quite the way you imagine.
>
> > Also any IP going into an apple product will need to be released
> > about a year before it will make to the product
> > itself. It needs to be implemented into a chip (it would take
> > 2-3 of months once all IP is collected), manufactured
> > in the Fab (another couple of months), and then build at
> > least in a development platform for further software
> > development, optimisation and testing. I would not be surprised
> > if this testing development process takes about
> > 5-6 months from the rumors I hear. Finally there needs to
> > be a production ramp up of the final product before
> > release so that they have adequate numbers, but that could overlap with the previous stage.
> >
> > Also Apple has the muscle and influence to dictate to ImgTech what becomes public and what
> > not. They may also pay a premium for it, and apple is knows as paying well for services
> > and silicon. I would not be surprised that the 'free' precision conversion is an exaggeration
> > from apple, as some power would be spend, and possibly a cautious approach from ImgTech
> > for the same exact reason. Both may see this from completely different angles.
> >
> > I would be brave and rule out 5s, 6, 6s and 7 as an apple designed GPU. given the recent hirings,
> > I would not be surprised if they may have bought a license to get the a current design and start
> > making their own derivatives, and potentially we could see their in-house GPU in the 2018 line.
> > If they start from scratch then I would expect the in-house chip to be delivered 2019-2020.
> >
>
>
> NickK (redhavoc.delete@this.yahoo.co.uk) on January 23, 2017 2:36 pm wrote:
> > > It's all very well analysing the docs you reference but in this
> > > case, there is a much easier way to get the information.
> > >
> > > http://www.anandtech.com/show/8706/imagination-announces-powervr-series7-gpus-series7xt-series7xe
> >
> > From what I understand Apple has most, if not all, of the software development in house. A GPU being a
> > difficult beast on its own I would not be surprised if ImgTech
> > supplies some of the very low level interfacing
> > software/driver of the GPU and Apple creates all the clever stuff on top (driver/compiler).
> >
> > Concerning the GPU hirings that Apple has done until recently,
> > they were always high level architects/managers
> > rather than people doing the dirty work of implementing a GPU. I would not be surprised if they were giving
> > a direction in the software teams, and deciding the special 'ingredients' they wanted in their hardware.
> > Similar to what Sony/Microsoft have done to their latest generation consoles with AMD.
>
> OMG, you must be a PC guy and think Apple would CLONE an existing NVidea/AMD decade old now obsolete
> design. Thus Apple would need a bunch of mid-level and low level employees from NVidea/AMD.
Its NVidia.. come on, thats not too hard is it?
>
> Was the Macintosh a CP/M clone just like DOS? Was the Apple disk controller a copy of a typical disk
> controller? Was the iPad just like Windows Mobile? Was the iPhone just a clone of a flip phone?
The Apple II was somewhat similar to a CP/M clone.. or did you forget where Apple started?
The IPhone was similar to a number of pre-existing touchscreen PDA phones, especially at first before Apple were forced to open up development.
The iPad was just a but iPhone without the radio.
Really not seeing your point here.. Are you trying to say that Apple only create products that are clean-sheet new, every time? History would appear to make such an argument laughable.
> Wavefront technology is not efficient, it was just least worst when dealing with memory
> that is ~80 cycles away. The iPad Pro is the only iDevice that renders from ram, all the
> other iDevices render from L3 cache. One huge massively ported cache that is far away
> is not great either, something crazy like distributed ram could work really well.
My, you are confused.. hint: Caches are good, but not some magick GPU secret sauce.. Many GPU loads dont come near to fitting in ANY currect cache, even if you just look at the pixel buffers (which is much much more than just framebuffers, fwiw).
> When/if Apple produces a GPU it will hit you like Apple's 64 bit ARM, you will look at
> the performance and die size and thermals and you will go WHAT THE F*CK IS THAT!?!
I suggest its time to cut down on the koolaid there buckaroo.. Apples 64bit arm was certainly a good bit of work, but I dont think many people in the real world reacted quite the way you imagine.
>
> > Also any IP going into an apple product will need to be released
> > about a year before it will make to the product
> > itself. It needs to be implemented into a chip (it would take
> > 2-3 of months once all IP is collected), manufactured
> > in the Fab (another couple of months), and then build at
> > least in a development platform for further software
> > development, optimisation and testing. I would not be surprised
> > if this testing development process takes about
> > 5-6 months from the rumors I hear. Finally there needs to
> > be a production ramp up of the final product before
> > release so that they have adequate numbers, but that could overlap with the previous stage.
> >
> > Also Apple has the muscle and influence to dictate to ImgTech what becomes public and what
> > not. They may also pay a premium for it, and apple is knows as paying well for services
> > and silicon. I would not be surprised that the 'free' precision conversion is an exaggeration
> > from apple, as some power would be spend, and possibly a cautious approach from ImgTech
> > for the same exact reason. Both may see this from completely different angles.
> >
> > I would be brave and rule out 5s, 6, 6s and 7 as an apple designed GPU. given the recent hirings,
> > I would not be surprised if they may have bought a license to get the a current design and start
> > making their own derivatives, and potentially we could see their in-house GPU in the 2018 line.
> > If they start from scratch then I would expect the in-house chip to be delivered 2019-2020.
> >
>
>
