Apple's A4 Processor is Based on Cortex A8, Not A9?

We await confirmation of this, but some in the tech world seem to be adamant that Apple's going to use a stripped down single core A8 chip within its A4 chip (helping with speed).

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2010/02/meet-the-a4-the-ipads-brain-not-quite-ready.ars

As I watched the videos and read the reports of the iPad in action at the launch event, I was thoroughly convinced that the device was built on the out-of-order Cortex A9, possibly even a dual-core version. But it turns out that the the A4 is a 1GHz custom SoC with a single Cortex A8 core and a PowerVR SGX GPU. The fact that A4 uses a single A8 core hasn't been made public, but I've heard from multiple sources who are certain for different reasons that this is indeed the case. (I wish I could be more specific, but I can't.)

In all, the A4 is quite comparable to the other Cortex A8-based SoCs that are coming onto the market, except that the A4 has even less hardware. The iPad doesn't have much in the way of I/O, so the A4 itself can do away with the I/O that it doesn't need. In contrast, the typical Cortex A8-based SoC has more I/O hardware than a mobile phone can use, because you never know what customers will need which interface types.

It's an A9 chip, reported weeks ago.

It's an A9 chip, reported weeks ago.

Yes, and? This is a new report, saying that it is an A8, from a blogger who is highly respected as a chip expert who typically has insider knowledge. Apple never announced what it actually has. Further, it won't be possible, I don't believe, to confirm by simply taking the thing apart. There will be a little square of silicon that says Apple A4 on it. Developers may, however, be able to probe it with test code to see what it can do, like for instance, if it is dual-core.

I'm skeptical of the article here:

Apple's 30-pin connector supports TV-out, [redacted start] but no external display attachment has been announced for the device, so it's possible that the SoC forgoes the common TV-out I/O block and related support for a secondary display [redacted end]. (Apparently the latest rumors from the SDK indicate that there is external display support, and at least one company has announced an adaptor.)

Even though he corrected the part at the end, it's a big oversight. It's not just rumors though! His "corrected" version is bunk. APPLE has component and VGA adapters for the darn thing! Not rumors, but on their website. Geeze.

However, if this article turns out to be true, I'll be fairly disappointed. I'm worried about future proofing as the first gen iPhone can get pretty laggy on 3.0. My wife uses my old one and it can be a pain to type on and play certain games. I just can't see Apple using such an old processor design! Most smartphones this year will use A9 variants, and will therefore be faster than an iPad, which would be sad. I don't want games lagging on my 1024x768 screen, which is somewhere around 5 times more pixels than an iPhone on a processor that is 67% faster based on mhz alone. Sure "A4" enhancements might help, but not as much as an A9 with dual-cores and new architecture.

In addition, weren't the power saving features supposed to be primarily due to an A9 based Apple A4?

This pushes me from "getting an iPad" to "thinking about maybe not getting an iPad". I don't know. V2 is starting to sound better every day. Crap, I'll probably buy them both anyway and give my wife the 1st gen. Who am I kidding?

This sounds about right as Apple is slow to adopt new processor technology typically.

This is very interesting... I guess it to be a power consumption thing. The fact that they made it themselves with the software makes it seem as snappy as it is. (But would the A9 make Safari snappier?)

Looked plenty fast enough in the videos, not like I'm doing Handbrake rips on it.

Interesting tid bit but is the processor really important in a product like this?

At the end of the day this is largely irrelevant as these new devices and their app stores mean that you buy software that just works on the device as supplied. As long as the processor is up to the job then who cares what it is anymore.

Existing thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=871736

Guess I'll repost my thoughts...

I'm skeptical of the article here:

Apple's 30-pin connector supports TV-out, [redacted start] but no external display attachment has been announced for the device, so it's possible that the SoC forgoes the common TV-out I/O block and related support for a secondary display [redacted end]. (Apparently the latest rumors from the SDK indicate that there is external display support, and at least one company has announced an adaptor.)

Even though he corrected the part at the end, it's a big oversight. It's not just rumors though! His "corrected" version is bunk. APPLE has component and VGA adapters for the darn thing! Not rumors, but on their website. Wow.

However, if this article turns out to be true, I'll be fairly disappointed. I'm worried about future proofing as the first gen iPhone can get pretty laggy on 3.0. My wife uses my old one and it can be a pain to type on and play certain games. I just can't see Apple using such an old processor design! Most smartphones this year will use A9 variants, and will therefore be faster than an iPad, which would be sad. I don't want games lagging on my 1024x768 screen, which is somewhere around 5 times more pixels than an iPhone on a processor that is 67% faster based on mhz alone. Sure "A4" enhancements might help, but not as much as an A9 with dual-cores and new architecture.

In addition, weren't the power saving features supposed to be primarily due to an A9 based Apple A4?

This pushes me from "getting an iPad" to "thinking about maybe not getting an iPad". I don't know. V2 is starting to sound better every day. Crap, I'll probably buy them both anyway and give my wife the 1st gen. Who am I kidding?

All I can say is that I really don't understand processors, how they work, and what all this means :)

Smart. It has an Apple logo, so a lot of Apple users are going to buy it anyway, so need to spend more money on a more powerful chip.

Wasn't it reported that they spent 1 billion dollars developing this?