Apple's new iPad 3 features a modified version of the company's standard A5 processor, A5X, which has a larger floor plan to include quad-core graphics, according to an analysis performed by UBM TechInsights, one of our sister organizations.
The A5X measures roughly 163 square millimeters, compared to about 120 square millimeters for the A5. Both use identical ARM processor cores, but the A5X adds four PowerVR SGX543MP4 graphics cores, which are paired in groups of two and then symmetrically opposed to each other on the floor plan. Both chips feature two application processor cores and operate at 1GHz, but the A5X includes more DDR interfaces and more architecture added for the handling of quad-core GPU, according to the teardown analysis.
Click on the image below to view a slideshow of the iPad 3 in various stages of disassembly:
My wife won an I-Pad recently. She already has warned me not to take it apart!Your guys have calmed my curiosity.The construction is about what I had envisioned.Thank you for maintaining domestic tranquility.
Taking something apart, while very interesting, imparts no real knowledge on how it works, or being able to repair it.Modern micro electronics for the most part is non-repairable as the software has melded with the hardware and the parts cannot be purchased ready to install, not to even mention the problems of replacing BGA form factors on high density boards even if they were available. In the olden days I would remark TTL parts to provide some design protection, a trick I learned from Data General.Any competent engineer could have reverse engineered it. Not so today.I can dissect a real apple (the fruit), identify all the parts, yet can't make it whole again.Too much micro circuitry provided by Mother Nature!On the I-Pad I could do little more than perhaps replace the battery system with something that might work, but if one of the dual CPUs has a bad register bit or one of the memories has a bad bit, the whole thing is toast. Even a bad solder joint under a BGA would cause the unit to be history.
I have never owned an Apple product, but was a little saddened when they switched from Motorola 68000, a superior CPU, to Intel in their computers some years ago.But then too I am very displeased with Microsoft products and the sales hype about "viruses", a codeword cover for poorly designed software.I do keep some machines running Windows, but prefer Microsoft MSDOS for engineering projects.Linux is OK but I'm thinking about buying an Apple laptop.
I believe that Microsoft and Apple owners got rich not by being greedy, but by serving the public. Hell, I am greedy, but certainly not rich because of it.Baseball and other sports figures are rich because they sell what is in demand to the masses. Greed has little to do with gaining wealth.Gates and Jobs provided billions of units desired by the public. So why all the mystery?The mystery to me is why does the public desire these units at all?One does not need a dual core CPU with nanosecond memory or a wireless gizmo with G3 to send email or porn!A pretty case makes little difference to me, but then again my wife often comments that I am "One Strange Duck"!What do I know?
There's is certainly a portion of the personal computer world (and gadget world) who swear by Apple. Lately, however, I've had a number of friends switch to Apple for their personal computing and phone. These people did not enjoy the switchover and did not find the Apple products user friendly. I was a bit surprised, especially since this happed to three different friends.
I have always heard that apple computers were very good and user friendly computers with a lot less crashes. Have an iPad never had any problems with it but there are some features I'm not crazy about.
It's hard to stomach that something this expensive is as good as its single worst component.
When the worst shitty component goes; the whole thing hits the trash can.
Isn't that taking advantage of the shee(p-a)pple and people's ignorance?
I can see it.. ooops the batteries are toast.. or it hit the floor and sometihng got disconnected inside, .. well.. throw it away !
Then we will buy a new one, you know: the NEW ! model with multi-3d cameras on the edges, or the double sided screen, or the model with surround sound and 10 microphones or the model built-in explosives detector.
More crap we don't need to buy,
with money we don't have,
to make Apple's greedy moguls richer
built by people that make $ 1.00 a day,
in a country where people don' t have enough to eat,
to impress people we don't care about
and lie ourselves that we are going to be happier with that shiny piece of...
I've heard the same thing about user-friendliness, Al. Since I'm not an owner of an Apple product, I don't really know whether it's true, but I can certainly see the loyalty of their customers. There's a sense of customer affinity -- maybe almost a sense of family between Apple and its customers. I was in downtown Chicago after Steve Jobs passed away and when I tried to walk past an Apple store on Michigan Avenue (which has a 15-foot wide sidewalk) I could barely move. Flowers were piled in front of the store and there were hundreds of Post-It notes stuck to the store's windows. Apple customers were actually sitting on the sidewalk in front of the store. I can't think of any other company that has that kind of relationship with its customers.
Yes, Apple has been very successful. I owned Apple product many years ago and found they were significantly more user friendly than PCs. However, lately I've had friends turn to apple products (laptops, iPhones, iPads) because of their buzz. Many of these friends have found their Apple products very unfriendly. I myself recently had trouble using an Apple desktop. This is new. It makes me wonder whether Apple products have become more difficult or whether it's because we're accustomed to other systems.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.