Talk:Apple motion coprocessors

Untitled

Can we get some sources in here. This article currently has a grand total of zero sources and makes some pretty grand claims. We also need a serious re-write for readability purposes. There are currently extensive grammatical and spelling errors littered throughout the article. 216.249.49.31 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Move to A7 article?

Doesn't this information belong in the Apple A7 article? The M7 is just a part of the A7 SoC. Unless they start putting it in other chips, I don't see the point in having a separate article. --Imroy (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

M7 is a new processor -- a separate chip, not part of the A7 chip. Though should possibly be merged as a section of the 5s page, until other devices use it. --cambookpro (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I had assumed it was integrated. The description makes it sound very simple and the name is reminiscent of the ARM Cortex-M family of uC's. So I had assumed it was included in the A7 SoC, in much the same way the OMAP 4470 has two Cortex-M3's as "coprocessors" and all of the OMAP 5's have two Cortex-M4's. But none of the articles I've been able to find says one way or the other. We'll find out when someone does a teardown of the iPhone 5S. --Imroy (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Apple brands their processors based on ARM's Cortex-A and Cortex-M cores. The "A" probably stands for "Application" in both cases, or "Apple" in Apple's case. But the "M" probably differs. "Microcontroller" in ARM's case, and "Motion" in Apple's. But you could very well be completely right! The M7 might very well include a Cortex-M processor. That wouldn't be surprising at all. -- Henriok (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ifixit have now done this teardown: http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+5s+Teardown/17383/2 & Apple M7 doesn't exist as a seperate IC - see their witty comment under Step 15. Promoting the M7 as a seperate chip was just Apple marketing so this page should be deleted/incorporated within A7 page.

Maybe the "M" stands for "magical," the M7 is invisible, and Apple does use pixie dust to hold the device together. Or perhaps the "M" stands for "marketing"… Toffee374 (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Apple says that it's a separate chip on their iPhone 5S spec page. Even if Ifixit didn't find the M7 processor, it might still be there and it is still a separate IC that could be a part of the A7 package. We'll have to see when Chipworks get their hands on this where it's really located. -- Henriok (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Its been found, and it is TINY compared to the A7. Time to resize and change the color of the image.  :) Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it! -- Henriok (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been added to the intro of the article that "Chipworks found that the M7 most likely is a NXP LPC18A1 microcontroller, based on an ARM Cortex-M3 core.[1]"

But it is incorrect to say that the M7 is nothing more than a 3rd party general-purpose microcontroller because it was non-functional without a custom made software, that is developed by Apple here. So, I've added to the paragraph this text: "Although, a general-purpose microcontroller is non-functional without a custom made software - that Apple has developed here to control the sensor IC's, collect and pre-process their measurement data, etc. (It's comparable to the practice of OEM's to use 3rd party general purpose microcontrollers with custom made software to supervise PC motherboard, under their own brandnames.)" (It's a general practice, really.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.121.99 (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Apps

I was just wondering if we were allowed to mention apps that use the M7 in here. I think it's interesting how developers are starting to come up with ideas of how to use the M7 and I wondered if some example apps would be appropriate or not on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-a-x (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

M7 vs M8?

If I do not do climbing (barometer data), do I really need M8 instead of M7? 88.192.39.165 (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Move to "Apple Motion Co-processors"

I think it makes sense to move this article, as it is clearly no longer just about the M7, but is too short to split. Lambsbridge (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is insufficient content to justify multiple articles and that the current title of "Apple M7" is no longer the best match for the article content. I think a rename would be reasonable. However, only the initial letter of a title should be capitalized (per WP:TITLEFORMAT), so I'd suggest "Apple motion co-processors" as article title. —RP88 ^(talk) 07:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See also coprocessor, we should keep the spelling consistent. I also think we may even just use motion coprocessor instead, since it seems to be universally related to Apple’s chip.–Totie (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to move it to "Apple motion coprocessors". The article itself uses "co-processors" exclusively, but I don't see that anyone else does, so I'll just edit the article. As far as the Apple part goes, I don't think it hurts to be specific in this case, but I'll put a redirect page at "Motion coprocessors" that can change to a list or disambiguation site if anyone else makes something similar. Lambsbridge (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Minor correction to the wording

These comments are based upon the "15:11, 4 December 2016‎" "version" of the Apple motion coprocessors article, (which was the current [most recent] version of that article "as of" when these comments were written).

The last sentence of the first ("lede") paragraph contains an error. It says "Apple announced the latest edition to its motion coprocessors, the M10, September 2016, found in the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus.[11]".

It seems that, after the word "latest", the next two words -- (probably highlighted in red above) should be either "edition of" or "addition to".

I would have just followed the advice to just 'Be bold' ("Wikipedia:Be bold"), ... if I had known which of those two choices was intended (or "better").

Which correction is better?

Which [change to the] wording ("edition of", or "addition to") would be better? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Update (09-Mar-2017) : You are still welcome to [feel free to] answer the above question, but, meanwhile, I got impatient waiting, and decided to just (be bold, and) deploy THIS edit. (I chose "addition to"). So, this case is (("probably")) CLOSED now. (right?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

M12

I removed the unreferenced addition of the M12 motion coprocessor. Does the M12 exist? The M12 does not appear with the A12 in the "Chip" section of the iPhone XS Tech Specs — compare to the iPhone X Tech Specs and iPhone 8 Tech Specs (archive) which show the A11 and M11 in the "Chip" section, the iPhone 7 Tech Specs (archive) which show the A10 and M10 in the "Chip" section, etc. The archived versions show that while Apple has recently edited the description in the A10/A11 "Chip" sections to downplay the motion coprocessor, they continue to show the M10/M11. The "Chip" section for the A12 does not show an M12 at all. See further details and discussion at Talk:Apple A12#M12. —RP88 ^(talk) 22:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources that reference the M12, M13, or M14. I don't think we can just assume that they exist, let alone that they are called M12, M13 or M14, especially now that Apple uses the "M series" nomenclature for their Mac chips. I suggest we remove the entries for these chips, unless anyone finds a reliable source. —Christianhov (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Reconcile this with Apple's new desktop processors

Apple now has two series of processors designated as "M" series: this one being their motion coprocessors, and their desktop SOC (for now, just the M1). Both these articles should make it clear that the other exists and has its own article.

– Ben Leggiero (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)