Dual core SGX543 dramatically boosts iPad 2 graphics - Page 4

Originally Posted by madhatter61

You are right on ... Just look at the upgrades of Macbook ... prices have been dropping some, but, performance is better, better, better with each iteration. The White Macbook for students is being replaced with Macbook air. Instant on, light weight, longer battery life, the essential legacy ports for EZ data shifting. Macbook Pro with discrete graphics is the most powerful laptop on the planet. OS Lion is bringing revolution to integration within the Mac Apple lines of products. Their wallet is growing, and the revolution continues. iPAD is fabulous for many things people do with their laptops. But many want the features of Macbook Air in iPAD. But try to hold Macbook Air with one hand and read a book, etc vs iPAD. All things in one device loses. That is why my workshop has many tools. Each one for the specific job it needs to do. ShopSmith tried to integrate many great functions into one system. It failed, because of setup time and reset and realign. I'll stop here with analogies.

Originally Posted by solipsism

First of all, ugh! Using my iPad 2 and repliying to multiple users. I had written quite a bit but then switched to a new Safari window to look something up. I thought about copying the text in the reply box but then remembered this is the iPad 2 with 2x the RAM. I No longer need to do that. I came back to the page about about 60 seconds with only 3 Safari pages in play a d it reloaded everything. So nit happy about that. Anyway...

Originally Posted by sprockkets

THEY did the review, Anand wrote it.



"In my opinion its more beautiful than anything else on the market today - including Apples iOS." http://www.anandtech.com/show/3982/w...one-7-review/1

OT anyhow.

Nice device, that ipad2

Originally Posted by megasmitty

My reasoning is if there is no competition then the innovation my start to lag.

Originally Posted by CIM

iPad 2 xooms past the competition.

Originally Posted by Sevenfeet

OK Mel, I went back to see if I could find the original WSJ article and here it is from Jan. 5, 2010:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

I don't subscribe so I can't read past the first two paragraphs which don't mention the price. But I can read the comments section and many on the first page react to the thought of paying $1000 for it. Since you subscribe, can you confirm the contents of the article?

Originally Posted by Sevenfeet

Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't know what he meant. I know what he wrote.

Originally Posted by bigpics

Costs more, runs slower.

Now there's a great ad slogan.....

Originally Posted by Alladdinn

"If you walk into an Apple store on a typical day, the place isn't packed with fandrois. It's crowded by ordinary folks who buy Apple stuff because it works for them enough that their geek friend doesn't have to explain it to them."

So true! I am not a geek. I have no interest -and when it gets right down to it, I have no head for what goes on under the "hood." I have learned and am learning as the years go by, but I am still at a level where I can grasp only the most broadly defined concepts. But that is enough, as it turns out.

My first computer was a Zeos (forget the model etc.) in 1993, which meant that I could forever leave behind the C:/ thank God! Using windows, however, did not mean that I could leave behind the need to have geek friends help me, again and again, to get things to work properly. But in 1995 I bought my first Mac and was amazed that computers could actually work as advertised.

Today I have a 2nd generation iPod and I am using an iMac with a G5 chip. This year I will be upgrading my computer to an iMac or a PowerBook or a MacBook Air -choices, choices, choices and ultimately I will be getting an iPad2. We have come a long way baby!

Originally Posted by lkrupp

That used to be the slogan used by PCs about Macs. And it was true, but the Mac was till the better machine and had the better OS. So what's your point?

The analyst calls the Honeycomb interface "extremely complicated and confusing, and does not come naturally you really have to work on it," citing conversations with Xoom owners.

Originally Posted by neiltc13

Let's not forget that since you started buying Macs, the quality of ALL computers has increased significantly. Even since you got your iMac G5, Microsoft has released two new versions of Windows, with the latest one being extremely stable and easy to use.

Originally Posted by guch20

I think his point is that the Xoom tablet is slower and costs more than the iPad 2. Which it is and does.

Hell, Honeycomb is a mess. When Google gets around to patching all of the crash bugs, they still have the fact that many users find it to be way too complicated.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/articl...comb_is_a_mess

Originally Posted by melgross

Very funny. If it were only true.

Did you just come here to troll. I'm the wrong person to troll. Do it again, and you're gone.

Originally Posted by sprockkets

Whether he is right or not, quoting financial analysts talking out of their ass isn't worth shit.

Originally Posted by Apple ][

I'm a truly evil and sadistic person who takes great delight in the misery and suffering of others and I actually spent about 30-45 minutes last night at a few different android and xoom forums just browsing, reading and thoroughly enjoying myself. It was pure comedy gold, much better than any tv sitcom. Some of those people are truly delusional, bordering on mentally ill, with a few of them being truly psychotic.

I learned that it's not necessary for any game to have more than 25 FPS, as the human eye can't detect more than that anyway.

I also learned that the smoothness and better response of iOS is an over hyped feature since people don't coat their floors with wax and slide around on it. Hence, smoothness and having no lag is a useless feature.

I also learned that engadget, anandtech and a bunch of other sites are really paid shills for Apple and that there is a huge conspiracy taking place against Android.

I could go on, but if anybody is interested in a few laughs and LOLs, then head on over to any of those android and xoom forums and read for yourself. There's also massive infighting taking place, with a few people there recognizing reality and admitting that the iPad is superior VS those who refuse to accept that fact. If I had just spent $800 on a buggy piece of junk, I might be upset too.

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

I agree, I don't have much interest in comparisons to Xoom--it is only half baked and probably only mentioned by Anand to have another graphics processing data point.

But, my question is this: What does this all mean for the mythical Retina Display summer update? If Apple was able to produce (in quantity) the double resolution/quadruple pixel count screen and add an HD line to the iPod2 without any other internal changes, how will it affect performance? I don't know enough about these things to speculate myself, but I am curious. Would it drag the iPad2's graphics performance back down or would it only affect certain functions?
I understand drawing triangles is drawing triangles no regardless of pixel count, but the contention that Xoom should get a break because of its pixel count has me wondering...

Originally Posted by Lukeskymac

I think you mean 30 fps. Besides, the ideal thing is that the average frame rate should be around 40fps, that way you know that when you get to a very action-packed part of a game (in other words, lots of explosions), the frame rate won't drop below 24fps.

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Did you read the same post? He was mocking the folks that wrote that.

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

On the subject of framerates: I remember reading an article—sorry I can't link to it, but this was in the Dead Tree Era™—about an experiment Stephen Spielberg conducted. Of course everybody knows 24 fps is inadequate for rapid movement, so he wanted to see what was really the optimum framerate for action movies.

He filmed a bunch of supposedly exciting footage—battle scenes, flying, roller-coaster rides, etc.—at a variety of framerates. Then he showed them to a number of volunteers after wiring them up like a polygraph—heart rate, respiration, skin galvanic response. He found that people's measurable "excitement" did indeed increase with framerate, presumably because it seemed more realistic or involving, until he hit 60 fps. After that there was no further improvement.

As a result of that, I consider it an observed scientific fact that 60 fps is the most the human visual system can handle, and anything over that is overkill—or just one of those meaningless specs that geeks like to quote.

Of course, I could be wrong. When stereo was invented, the brain wasn't supposed to be able to detect different arrival times at each ear, just differing loudness. That turned out to be baloney. Also, the TV I'm looking at right now actually has 1920 X 1080 pixels on the screen. (That was a prerequisite for me, so I'm a very late adopter on HDTV.) In this area we have five 1080i channels and five 720p channels. Doing the arithmetic, from this distance I shouldn't be able to resolve 720 lines, let alone 1080, but I can tell the 720p channels appear dull and lifeless compared with the 1080i ones. I can't explain it, but it's an observed fact for me.

I think someone should revisit Spielberg's experiment in the electronic era. A question that occurs to me is: these new 3D TVs think they need 120 Hz for 3D, but I wonder if alternating 30 fps per eye would add up to a perceived 60 fps?

Originally Posted by guch20

I'm using Windows 7 as I type this. I love it (you have to understand I was stuck with Vista before this) and it is definitely more stable than many previous versions of Windows (XP excluded, since it was by far the most stable in my experience). But easy to use? No. Easier than previous versions, yes. But easy? Compared to my wife's Mac? Not even close, IMO.

Originally Posted by warpdag

They actually have a video using OpenGL here where you can see the difference: http://www.iosnoops.com/2011/03/13/i...nchmark-tests/

Originally Posted by Lukeskymac

24 FPS is used in movies, AFAIK, and the real "human eye can't see the difference beyond taht" number is 60 FPS...

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

On the subject of framerates: I remember reading an article—sorry I can't link to it, but this was in the Dead Tree Era™—about an experiment Stephen Spielberg conducted. Of course everybody knows 24 fps is inadequate for rapid movement, so he wanted to see what was really the optimum framerate for action movies.

He filmed a bunch of supposedly exciting footage—battle scenes, flying, roller-coaster rides, etc.—at a variety of framerates. Then he showed them to a number of volunteers after wiring them up like a polygraph—heart rate, respiration, skin galvanic response. He found that people's measurable "excitement" did indeed increase with framerate, presumably because it seemed more realistic or involving, until he hit 60 fps. After that there was no further improvement.

As a result of that, I consider it an observed scientific fact that 60 fps is the most the human visual system can handle, and anything over that is overkill—or just one of those meaningless specs that geeks like to quote.

Of course, I could be wrong. When stereo was invented, the brain wasn't supposed to be able to detect different arrival times at each ear, just differing loudness. That turned out to be baloney. Also, the TV I'm looking at right now actually has 1920 X 1080 pixels on the screen. (That was a prerequisite for me, so I'm a very late adopter on HDTV.) In this area we have five 1080i channels and five 720p channels. Doing the arithmetic, from this distance I shouldn't be able to resolve 720 lines, let alone 1080, but I can tell the 720p channels appear dull and lifeless compared with the 1080i ones. I can't explain it, but it's an observed fact for me.

I think someone should revisit Spielberg's experiment in the electronic era. A question that occurs to me is: these new 3D TVs think they need 120 Hz for 3D, but I wonder if alternating 30 fps per eye would add up to a perceived 60 fps?

Originally Posted by addabox

Doug Trumbull, the great film effects artist who created the Star Gate sequence for 2001, the spacecraft for Close Encounters and a lot of the effects in Blade Runner (among a great deal of other notable work) at one point was trying to get his "Showscan" process off the ground.

The story goes that he was editing some 70mm footage shot at high speed on a flatbed, fast forwarding through a sequence, and was struck by how footage shot at high speeds viewed at high speeds (which then appears to run at "normal" speed, instead of slow motion) took on an almost 3D quality. His subsequent experimentation led him to conclude that the optimal effect was achieved on 70mm film shot and viewed at 60fps.

He directed Natalie Wood's last movie, "Brainstorm", intending it to be a showcase for the new process (with most of the film shot and projected conventionally and "brainstorm" sequences, depicting direct experience of other people's memories, in Showscan) but he couldn't get enough theater owners to invest in the considerable expense of retrofitting their projectors. He went on to use Showscan for showrides in amusement parks.

I've always wondered why, given the change over to digital acquisition and projection, there hasn't been a reinvestigation of increasing frame rates for both shooting and projection this way. There aren't any electromechanical issues as in film projection, doubling your data storage costs isn't particularly burdensome, and it gives you denser information per second (with more visible impact) than just boosting resolution. It certainly would be easier to implement (and probably easier to enjoy) than the benighted 3D craze.

Originally Posted by solipsism

* Xoom has one model with a second one planned for WiFi with no release date, right? Only one Playbook planned, right? And the Galaxy Tab only has one, right? The Asus tablets are the only I can think of that have any diversity, but its not capacity diversity, but unique qualities to the OS type and/or casing for specific usage needs. At least the Asus tablets all have IPS panels. Go Asus!

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I wish you and the other moderators would use that hammer with all trolls, not just those that happen to tick you off or wound your personal pride.

In other words, be consistent. It helps AI's credibility.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I wish you and the other moderators would use that hammer with all trolls, not just those that happen to tick you off or wound your personal pride.

In other words, be consistent. It helps AI's credibility.

Originally Posted by artificialintel

But I didn't even mention the hinge magnets; solipsism had me exactly right.

In any case, my own iPad 2 hasn't arrived yet, so I was just briefly using a friend's. His seemed a little awkward but generally firm. That could be a function of my grip at the time I was using it (left-handed, but I'm a righty) or just differences in magnet strengths. After all, some iPad's have the LCD bleed issue but most don't. If (as solipsism mentioned) the 'feature' is unintentional, then that would explain why it's highly variable (assuming it is).

Originally Posted by neiltc13

Let's not forget that since you started buying Macs, the quality of ALL computers has increased significantly. Even since you got your iMac G5, Microsoft has released two new versions of Windows, with the latest one being extremely stable and easy to use.

Originally Posted by melgross

Sorry friend, but you did. The hinge magnet is the same one holding it to the back. If that's not what you meant, then it wasn't clear. There is no other magnet holding it to the back. The magnets that hold it closed to the front have no effect when it's turned to the rear.

"The blue cover attaches to the back using the same magnet (I think) as it uses to control the on/off function of the front. "

Originally Posted by sprockkets

Whether he is right or not, quoting financial analysts talking out of their ass isn't worth shit.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I wish you and the other moderators would use that hammer with all trolls, not just those that happen to tick you off or wound your personal pride.

In other words, be consistent. It helps AI's credibility.

Originally Posted by Aeolian

You make an excellent point. I think they've been making "retina" displays for a long time now. It all has to do with "yield". So they try to make 'retina' screens for the iPad... They only get one out of 10, per say. Bad yield right... no. They take what they can from that and put it in the iPhone or iPod touch.

They have been building them for a long time now. The so called 'rejects' end up in the phone or touch. It gets more complicated than that, but I believe they are building up supply. Who knows, by the time they release it, it may be a 9 out of 10 yield....

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

Yes I agree.
And what about the blatant racists., they get immunity.
You Americans only see coloured racism, but what about the other kind.
Some Finn doesn't like Russians and made nasty comments.
Why? This is a tech blog. I posted to this creep to watch itself, and it got even nastier.
I complained to the moderators but they replied it was okay and it was allowed to post as such. See double standards. What irks one person may not irk another.

Originally Posted by newbee

I couldn't agree more!

Originally Posted by solipsism

In my leather case, when I flip the cover around the magnets at the distal end of the cover stick to the back at the posterior end just behind the volume buttons and mute switch. As previously stated, it’s not a good hold but it stays up fine providing I have some support on the two innermost medial segments of the cover.

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't know what you mean by support. If it needs support to stick, then it isn't sticking.