Talk:Apple A5

ARM = British

The A5 and A4 is made by ARM = British manufacturer OR ?? What's Samsung got to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.27 (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! mY bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.27 (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question (for other visitors). ARM Holdings is a Brittish company designing microprocessor technologies. They are designing CPU cores, graphics processors, processor buses, and other components inside CPUs. They are not doing any designing nor manufacturing of actual processors though. Samsung, Texas Instruments, nVidia, ST Microelectronics and a myriad of other chip manufacturers are doing actual products using licensed technologies from ARM. Apple's A4 and A5 processors are such processors that seem to be based on certain Samsung processors, but are further designed in-house by Apple. -- Henriok (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this article describes it best, (manufactured by Samsung): http://www.9to5mac.com/55741/whats-on-that-a5-chip/ 68.4.241.106 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Cortex A9

This article states that the cores on A5 are Cortex A9s. This is not listed in any of the references cited; I checked. The assertion should be removed until a citation can be found. Adrian Sampson (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC) yeahh right! :d

RAM speed

The LPDDR2 cannot work at 1066mhz this is impossible LPDD2 works at 400 mhz max (being double data rate total would be 800mhz). The only real "source" in the article about the memory speed is a guess.

The RAM memory in the IPAD 2 is according to analysis company chipworks the same as in the Blackberry PLaybook ik works at 800mhz for a total of 800 mhz. NOT the proclaimed 1066mhz....

(Source:) http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/recent-teardowns/2011/04/teardown-of-the-rim-blackberry-playbook/

(Source:) http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad-2-Wi-Fi-Teardown/5071/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.85.7.81 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Designed by Apple

Apple A5 is designed by Apple.[1] According to the link: ""The powerful A5 processor, which uses technology licensed from Britain's ARM Holdings, is designed by Apple in California, by a team formerly part of PA Semi – an American chip design company that Apple bought in April 2008."" If anyone sees that "Apple A5 is designed by Samsung" or finds that the statement "Apple A5 is designed by Apple" is deleted then, please revert it. Thank you. Ykhwong (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge

• Propose merge of Apple A5x into Apple A5. Widefox (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Already merged, no need for pages for incremental releases.--iGeMiNix 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with the "merge" is that the A5X is not a PoP as stated in the first line of the article. The memory chip is no longer stacked on top of the processor. So, how to reword this?Macdonaldinho (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed -- Henriok (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Size and heat dissipation

Considering this processor's target markets are clearly in imbedded devices, I'd be interested to know what its physical size and heat dissipation properties are. In their travels, if anyone runs across a credible source for this info, let me know :). --24.5.197.145 (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edited but need more verification: 2 variations of A5 besides A5X exists.

Accroding to iPhone Wiki, there are 3 variants of Apple A5 altogether:

• Apple A5 (S5L8940), used in iPad 2 and iPhone 4S, dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 CPU + dual-core PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU;
• Apple A5 (S5L8942), used in Apple TV (3rd Gen) and iPad 2 (a new iPad2,4 variant), single-core ARM Cortex-A9 CPU + dual-core PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU;
• Apple A5X (S5L8945), used in iPad (early 2012), dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 CPU + dual-core PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU.

So I edited to make all three variants appear in the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvista (talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarcation of speed comparison

I fixed a fragmented sentence comparing the speed of the A4 and A5, and changed the tense from 'states' to 'has stated' (which seems more encyclopedic, and I think I read somewhere that articles should generally avoid present tense usage - but that's IIRC..). Jimw338 (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! -- Henriok (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It stated 'Apple states that the CPU is 4 times faster than the original iPad. And the GPU is 7 times faster than it's predecessor." I assume this means the CPU portion of the A5 chip is faster than the CPU portion of the A4 - not some kind of comparison saying that the A5 CPU alone as faster than the entire original iPad? (I like Apple, but I wouldn't put it past them to say something like that..) Jimw338 (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If one is to clarify this so a lay person can understand it in its entirety one would have to explain a lot about CPUs and chip architectures, and that's not a topic for this article. There are links on this page to articles like System-on-a-chip, CPU, GPU and other relevant pages for further reading. Your assumption is correct. Apple is comparing the CPU portion of A5 to the CPU portion of A4, and the major speed increase comes from the A5 being dual core, and by changing microarchitecture (i.e. Cortex-A8 to Cortex-A9), better SIMD unit, faster RAM and some special encoding functionality enabled directly in hardware. This is a statement not challenged or controversial in the tech world since it's was replicated by other chip designs of the same generation and was roughly demonstrated in various benchmarks. -- Henriok (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Six mm chip

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/11/shrinking_a5_chip_in_apple_tv/ What is a surprise is that the Apple TV's A5 has shrunk. According to MacRumors, it's now a mere 6mm by 6mm, whereas its predecessor measured 8.19mm by 8.68mm.

Worth a mention yet? Hcobb (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you. But its 32 nm Samsung according to Chipworks. -- Henriok (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apple A5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407181857/http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html to http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I checked this link, and it appears to not mention the A5 (and is in 2007 anyway - does Wikipedia have time travel now?). I found a link that does mention it ("Apple TV Q&A (section Internal Differences)" at EveryMac), and added it, along with an archive link.

Except that the "checked" parameter doesn't seem to work. My question is: is there a "checked=" parameter on the cite tag or not, to prevent the above bot from flagging it again? It's not at all clear from the documentation (doing searches for "wikipedia template <whatever>" on Google) how to specify that archive urls have been checked. There are bots that (it seems) do this automatically from time to time, so I'd think they'd need to be identified as "checked". Or at least there seem to be bots - how they "choose" which pages to scan? I've seen plenty of cites that don't have archivelinks ("my hobby"..), and would think that a bot could simply process the entire WP corpus in.. Oh, a month on a fast computer? Jimw338 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)