Anon (no.delete@this.email.com) on April 4, 2017 4:15 pm wrote:
> 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.

Fine, like a good Lieutenant I officially zip my lips until Apple announces actual products.

> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>