A5X Chip Floorplan Reveals Significant Space Required for Quad-Core Graphics

that looks like a good sized apartment in NYC

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the iOS system libraries have access to OpenCL which uses the GPU to offload certain processes, so a quad-core GPU is a much bigger deal than just rendering 3D graphics and powering the retina display.

As has been stated ad naseum, Apple’s ability to get the industrial designers, interface designers, cpu & gpu engineers and software people all in the same room to hash out problems is going to produce real world advantages that belie specs and confound competitors. Nerds will moan, no one else will.

double the pixel amount

Isn't it 4x pixel count, based on double the resolution in two dimensions?

Someone in the AnandTech comments mentioned the A5X die is about the same size as the upcoming 22nm quad core Ivy Bridge processors. If this isn't evidence that Apple messed up by using a 45nm process (vs. waiting 2 months and moving to 32nm), I don't know what is.

Except that it's not 2 months is it? Apple have been making iPad's since the first week of January to have enough ready to ship in mid-March. Even assuming that a 32nm process works and can produce the vast amount of chips required right out of the gate you'd be looking at delaying the launch until, what, July at the earliest? Longer if you assume parts were being made before that assembly time.

And for what? No, really, what benefit does Apple get by doing that? A15 and PowerVR Series 6 wouldn't really be ready by then so the only benefit may be to go to a quad core A9 which a) would bring questionable benefits to the iPad anyway (how many apps really NEED quad core CPU's?) and b) would still get spanked by the A15 designs which would then have been only a few months away from launching. The third gen iPad is hardly a slouch and feels just as quick in day to day use as the iPad 2. No-one outside of spec geeks cares about the CPU and all Apple would have done is hand the advantage to Android as someone, most likely Asus or Samsung, would have got a high def screen out the door before Apple shipped the new iPad.

Don't get me wrong, more power is always nice but right now it's hard to see what Apple could have done differently. The roadmap is pretty clear right now: the fourth gen iPad will see an A6 based on the next gen architecture and probably receive a big ol' speed boost as a result. The iPhone 6 will certainly get the A6 as well. The one that's still an unknown right now is iPhone 5 but I wouldn't be surprised to see that get an A5 variant on 32nm as they're still going to be close to the wire to get Cortex A15 CPU's out in volume by late summer.

Sorry but when you're talking about using utterly unproven technology the moment it's available for a mass market product like the iPad, well, that seems like a massive and unnecessary risk to me.

Someone in the AnandTech comments mentioned the A5X die is about the same size as the upcoming 22nm quad core Ivy Bridge processors. If this isn't evidence that Apple messed up by using a 45nm process (vs. waiting 2 months and moving to 32nm), I don't know what is.

What exactly is the problem with big die then? The actual device isn't any bigger because of that and the battery life is the same too (according to Apple, at least). You are making a big deal out of nothing.

Red over Green!? Really!?

I'm really impressed that people can see this and actually identify the components on this chip.

Sure iPad 2 was great, but i do not want innovation to stagnate due to lack of a cpu upgrade...

A15 Dual was my hopes, but even an a9 quad doesn't cut it. Current chip may be able to hold its own now, sort of, but in a year it will be behind the competition by a lot.

Well typically I think computers are judged against current technology and not what is going to be available in the future. Also, Apple products are typically not industry-leading spec'd machines but its not too important since the software support is strong and the overall experience is solid.

Because the CPU and GPU can't handle them. The video processing apps have long wait times to render the movies.Augmented reality apps are only doing so much yet could be doing so much more if they have more CPU and GPU power.

But that's precisely why there was no CPU upgrade. Apple could've either waited half a year to release the iPad when the new chips are ready, boosted the CPU at the expense of GPU, or upgraded the GPU. They chose the last one.

It would've been impossible for them to upgrade everything in time for the March release and the target price. I'm actually fairly impressed Apple managed to pack in 70% more battery, a larger chip and a higher resolution display at the same price.

What exactly is the problem with big die then?

For the unhappy geeks it's not really about the big die but the fact Apple didn't use the latest technology - 32nm or 28nm process - that wasn't available back when iPad components were being made. ;)

The challenge for Apple is not only to make a tablet with up-to-date components and affordable pricing, but also they have to make millions and millions of them quicker than any other company in the world. Otherwise it becomes a conspiracy theory - "Apple artificially lowers production to grab attention"