iPhone 3.5G to support 1080p H.264 High-Profile Dual-Stream Decoding?

Thursday 01st May 2008, 02:44:00 PM, written by Arun

Yesterday, Imagination Technologies announced that Samsung had signed a license to manufacture "certain POWERVR SGX graphics and VXD video IP cores". Apple instantly came to everyone's mind, and AppleInsider is partially confirming it. But they don't realize just how massive the implications are.

First, let's point out that nobody really knows when a iPod or an iPhone based on SGX and VXD will come out. It could be in one month, in one year, or even more. There's simply not enough data to determine that, especially since 'manufacturing' is vague (is this required for tape-out?) and nobody knows when those agreements were actually signed, rather than just announced. Obviously if the chip with those cores barely taped-out, we're not going to see it in this year's iPhone 3G!

It is extremely likely that other phones will come out this year with PowerVR's SGX; so that wouldn't be a huge advantage for Apple. They'd be an early adopter, but nothing incredible. VXD, on the other hand, is much more interesting as it supports 1080p H.264 Main/High Profile decoding, as well as VC-1 and a variety of other standards. From our understanding, no mobile phone manufacturer has anything on their roadmap with such capabilities for the next 2+ years; this implies that such capabilities would likely go unmatched by competitors until late 2010. So even if it's a mid-2009 product, that's still very impressive, and ought to keep Nokia & friends on their toes.

So why would you want 1080p on your mobile phone or personal media player, anyway? The point obviously isn't to run that on your handheld's screen; assuming a high enough bitrate, there's simply no way you'd see the difference on a VGA 4.5 inches screen between 720p and 1080p (however, we'd argue the difference between VGA/D1 and 720p should be fairly obvious; that's also why many QVGA handhelds with much smaller screens, including the original iPod with Video, could play VGA H.264).

No, the point is obviously to use your handheld as your media center (via HDMI) and eventually buy all your HD movies on iTunes. Clearly most people's internet connection may seem to be too slow for high-bitrate 1080p videos; however, 3.5G and 4G mobile networks will likely fix that problem in the 2009-2011 timeframe. Streaming it via WiFi is also possible, and you might even be able to connect your handheld to an external USB HDD.

Obviously not everyone will benefit from 1080p video decoding capabilities and consider it a major selling point. However, the fact remains that every single mobile phone manufacturer is going down that route in a few years, and if these rumours are true it looks like Apple might have a large head start against them. Right now, the iPhone isn't really anything extraordinary from a technical perspective; its major selling point is its user interface. That might all change if/once these rumours come to fruition, though.

As a reminder, PowerVR's VXD core is extremely power efficient; in fact, a handheld's LCD screen is likely to take as much or more power than the decoding hardware on a leading-edge process node! Intel's implementation for the Atom platform on 130nm is said to consume only 120mW for 1080p H.264 High Profile (Single-Stream); clearly that's already viable for a handheld, and it'd be even much lower on 65nm or 45nm.

So will Apple surprise and actually deliver a SGX/VXD-based iPhone next month? We don't think so, but hey - we don't think we're the only ones who'd love to be pleasantly surprised here!


Discuss on the forums

Tagging

apple ± iphone, powervr, sgx, vxd


Latest Thread Comments (14 total)
Posted by AlphaWolf on Saturday, 03-May-08 05:56:07 UTC
Quoting wco81
Lets say they give you the capability to play back 1080p videos (probably at lower bitrates than Blu-Ray) from a mobile device.Even with lower bitrates, storage needs go up for such devices substantially over current devices.
Of course, but they are already at 32gb for the ipod touch. You could fit a few compressed HD movies on there and still have tons of room for music. (when I rip dvd's to my ipod and they run under 1gb and quality is good, figure HD ones being maybe 6x the size). I'm not sure about the need for 1080, but I suppose that will be the standard at some point in the future.
Quote
Two to three years from now, storage and silicon to support such capabilities may be cheaper than it would be now but will the overall BOM cost remain at current levels?
Storage is already there unless you think there is a need to have an entire collection on the device.
Quote
They'd have to sell or rent a lot of HD videos for such a product to make sense. Have videos overall really taken off on iTunes?
Disney alone does $1 million a week on iTunes.
Quote
Maybe they think "Full HD" will be a marketing point for portable video players in a couple of years.A more interesting capability might be the *encoding* 1080p in real time.Imagine all the iPhones and iPods being used to record high-quality video. That might boost interest in iMovie and in turn, interest in Macs.That would make more economic sense than trying to sell 1080p videos to play back from a mobile device.
If there is a demand for HD video and the device is capable I don't really see the problem. Having a very portable HD player (smaller than a disc) should have some demand.

Posted by Scott_Arm on Saturday, 03-May-08 19:00:20 UTC
Quoting wco81
Lets say they give you the capability to play back 1080p videos (probably at lower bitrates than Blu-Ray) from a mobile device.

Even with lower bitrates, storage needs go up for such devices substantially over current devices.

Two to three years from now, storage and silicon to support such capabilities may be cheaper than it would be now but will the overall BOM cost remain at current levels?

They'd have to sell or rent a lot of HD videos for such a product to make sense. Have videos overall really taken off on iTunes?

Maybe they think "Full HD" will be a marketing point for portable video players in a couple of years.

A more interesting capability might be the *encoding* 1080p in real time.

Imagine all the iPhones and iPods being used to record high-quality video. That might boost interest in iMovie and in turn, interest in Macs.

That would make more economic sense than trying to sell 1080p videos to play back from a mobile device.
3G should be fast enough to stream HDTV content. They may allow video on demand rentals or something like that.

Posted by wco81 on Saturday, 03-May-08 19:16:50 UTC
Not so sure 3G is fast enough for good quality video nor that carriers are able to support widespread streaming of video.I think Qualcom was working on a parallel network just to stream video. Maybe it was called MediaFLO or something like that.In Europe they have DVB or something like that for mobile. They have better networks and the ability to make "video calls" on some prepaid SIMs but they're costly.In the US, who's watching video regularly on mobile devices? People who take public transit on trains? How big is that population?There are now a lot of little devices and cheap digicams touting the ability to capture and upload directly to Youtube. Maybe eventually, Youtube content will migrate to better quality video and for that, better capture devices will be available.Capturing and sharing content seems more likely to have mass-appeal than playing back high-quality video on mobile devices.

Posted by AlphaWolf on Saturday, 03-May-08 19:27:12 UTC
Quoting wco81
In the US, who's watching video regularly on mobile devices? People who take public transit on trains? How big is that population?
Over 600 million a year, if you count domestic air travel.

Posted by wco81 on Saturday, 03-May-08 19:37:02 UTC
True, people do like watching movies on long flights.Air travel is becoming expensive though.I was thinking more of subways and commuter trains. Outside of a handful of big US cities, it's nothing like in the rest of the world.Of course, it's not easy to sell movies for downloads outside the US because of contents rights holder issues. iTunes still doesn't sell too many videos outside of the US.Again, I wonder if this isn't more about making a device with this kind of technology simply because they can or because there is or will be a market for HD videos on mobile devices.

Posted by AlphaWolf on Saturday, 03-May-08 19:45:33 UTC
Quoting wco81
True, people do like watching movies on long flights.
Doesn't really have to be a long flight when you consider time to board etc.

Quote
Air travel is becoming expensive though.
All travel is becoming expensive.

Quote
I was thinking more of subways and commuter trains. Outside of a handful of big US cities, it's nothing like in the rest of the world.

Of course, it's not easy to sell movies for downloads outside the US because of contents rights holder issues. iTunes still doesn't sell too many videos outside of the US.

Again, I wonder if this isn't more about making a device with this kind of technology simply because they can or because there is or will be a market for HD videos on mobile devices.
If you don't innovate you stagnate, apple certainly doesn't want people thinking the ipod they bought last year is good enough.

Posted by Scott_Arm on Saturday, 03-May-08 22:26:21 UTC
Quoting wco81
Not so sure 3G is fast enough for good quality video nor that carriers are able to support widespread streaming of video.
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what the speed is. I don't think there's a standard to be expected from 3G, so it really depends on the network and what technologies are available. UMTS w/ HSPA deployments are operating at 7.2Mbit download according to wikipedia. Theoretically HSPA can do 14.4Mbit download. Not sure which networks they're referring to. I was trying to look up Rogers Vision details, but couldn't find anything. 7.2Mbit should be fast enough for some high quality video.

I know AT&T was not ready for the increase in mobile traffic on their network when they launched the iPhone.

So, I guess Apple is hopefully going to make the technology available to consumers, but I doubt carriers will support it unless you pay a very high premium for your plan.

Posted by Arun on Sunday, 04-May-08 09:34:57 UTC
Well, the 2009 version of the iPhone might, or might not, be based on HSPA+ (if it was, it'd be an early adopter which would be strange for Apple, but it's an incremental improvement and many chips that support HSDPA in that timeframe will also support HSPA+). If it was, that's 36Mbps downlink - of course, in practice you won't get quite that much, but in real-time it might be able to handle 15Mbps peaks just fine. Of course, that's more viable for high-qquality 720p than low-quality 1080p but it could do both at least in theory...

Also, don't forget that the same chip might be used for the HDD iPods in that timeframe. There, storage really is the least of your problems! (200GB+ ftw)

Posted by wco81 on Sunday, 04-May-08 15:08:33 UTC
If they do push 1080p videos on iPhones, it would be probably through sideloading (download to computer and sync to iPhone via iTunes), not through streaming or downloading via the mobile network.And you probably won't have Blu-Ray type of encodes because they're using BD-50 more and more. Probably not even comparable to BD-25 encodes. So bitrates will probably be low.Doesn't 720p content on iTunes go as low as 5 mbps?

Posted by Arun on Sunday, 04-May-08 22:29:39 UTC
Quoting wco81
Doesn't 720p content on iTunes go as low as 5 mbps?
Yes, but NVIDIA is partially to blame here IIRC...


Add your comment in the forums

Related apple News

Apple acquires PA Semi; Press proves lack of understanding. [UPDATED]
Apple picks AMD Radeon HD GPUs for iMac
EA games for Mac announced at WWDC not native
NVIDIA and Intel power the Apple TV