or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple nears trial production of high-res iPad 3 coming in early 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple nears trial production of high-res iPad 3 coming in early 2012

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
Apple is aligning with its far eastern component suppliers and manufacturers for a trial production of a high-resolution, third-generation iPad ahead of a planned launch in 2012, as the electronic maker looks to continue to outpace would-be rivals in the high-stakes tablet space, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Citing people familiar with the matter, the financial paper said the Cupertino-based company has already begun receiving "chips" and 9.7-inch, high-resolution displays that feature a resolution of 2048 by1536 for a trial production of 1.5 million iPad 3s set to begin in October.

"Suppliers will ramp up production and try to improve the yield rate for the new iPad in the fourth quarter before its official launch in early 2012," one of the people familiar with the matter said.

While the Journal provided no further details, its findings are consistent with those of Concord Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who similarly told AppleInsider last month that his industry checks turned up strong evidence of a new iPad hitting the manufacturing lines sometime in the fourth quarter of 2011. He warned, however, that it was unclear when Apple planned to introduce it to market.

Kuo as early as February reported that Apple's iPad 3 would incorporate a 9.7 inch IPS panel with FFS (fringe-field switching) technology, which enables a wider viewing angle and clearer visual quality in direct sunlight.

According to the analyst, Apple originally hoped to include the so-called iPad Retina Display in the iPad 2 but aborted the plan due to limited manufacturing yield rates. "At this point," Kuo said in January, "making a high resolution and bright IPS/FFS panel is not easy and the production volume and cost couldn’t meet Apple’s requirements."



With the debut of a 2048x1536 resolution iPad, Apple's tablet devices will sport a resolution higher than the company's largest 17 inch MacBook Pro and in the ballpark of its 27 inch, 2560x1440 LED Cinema Display, which the company promotes as "supersized" and "huge," with an "astonishing" resolution.

Having created a user interface that works well on a 9.7 inch display from the tablet's inception, Apple freed itself to dramatically boost the iPad's resolution independently of its screen size in order to deliver a very realistic depiction of photos, ebooks, documents, videos, and dynamic content that users navigate via touch while holding the display at distance where pixel density is readily noticeable.

The high-density displays will present existing iPad apps (ranging from Netfllix to NPR) at full fidelity while allowing optimized apps to draw images, text and other content with razor sharp detail at a pixel density where individual dots begin to vanish from view, exactly like iPhone 4.

And because Apple has designed the iPad user interface from the ground up to be resolution independent, doubling the resolution doesn't have the same drawbacks involved with boosting pixel density on desktop or notebook systems. With a resolution nearing the retina's detail threshold, iPad 3 can deliver a user interface capable of exceptional quality, without demanding higher quality video sources than currently exist.

At the same time, photographers and anyone else who deals with detailed images, ranging from X-rays and MRI images to detailed PDF renderings and 3D architectural models, will benefit from the resolution boost because it will simply be there to use. Even users with basic needs for iWork productivity apps, browsing the web, and playing puzzle games will benefit from razor sharp rendering of text (that iOS is capable of doing automatically) and enhancements third party developers make to their custom graphic assets (which are easy to add to existing apps).



The resolution independent design of iOS will also allow Apple to potentially sell both a new iPad 3 with a very high resolution alongside existing iPad 2s at a low price tier if it so chooses, without causing fragmentation issues for developers or users. The same apps can run seamlessly on both, supplying normal or double resolution graphic assets as needed to take full advantage of the new screens while still working normally on existing models.

(For more on the prospect of an iPad with a Retina-quality display, please see AppleInsider's report on Why high resolution screens matter for Apple's iPad.)

Ahead of October's trial production of the iPad 3, Apple earlier this month begun trial production of its proprietary A6 mobile processor that's expected to power the iPad 3 and, eventually, the iPhone 6. A report from the Taiwan Economic News earlier this month singled out Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. as the new manufacturer of the chip, reportedly snagging a role formally filled by Samsung.

The ARM-based A6 is said to incorporate TSMC's 28-nanometer process and 3D stacking technology. The chipmaker's "silicon interposer" and "bump on trace" methods are also said to be utilized in the next-generation chip, which is scheduled to be finalized in the first quarter of 2012.

According to that report, the chip is destined to be unveiled in the iPad 3 no earlier than the second quarter of 2012, suggesting that device could arrive roughly one year after the launch of the iPad 2.
post #2 of 44
I skipped the iPad 2 so will be looking at getting the 3. I suspect it will be more expensive though, with such a screen. But an impressive device and probably irresistible.
post #3 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I skipped the iPad 2 so will be looking at getting the 3. I suspect it will be more expensive though, with such a screen. But an impressive device and probably irresistible.

The iPhone 4 display, which still hasn't been matched by competitors, seemed like it would be too pricey at current price points. Apple's scale and investments in the tech could make it feasible for the iPad 3. That could even mean losing some profit on the device to secure the tablet market for the foreseeable future.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #4 of 44
Early 2012 is a good few months away yet - how many more of the "competition" will have got bored of not selling anything and pulled out of the tablet market by then?
post #5 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcM76 View Post

Early 2012 is a good few months away yet - how many more of the "competition" will have got bored of not selling anything and pulled out of the tablet market by then?

It's certainly not looking like Apple has to release the next iPad with a 2048x1536 resolution display, but it's Game, Set, Match if they do.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #6 of 44
Blasphemy. Losing profit? Apple has a big fancy new spaceship to built. It needs the profit. If Apple can't get the product out for the same price while making about the same profit, it will take the same approach it always has taken. Namely, offer that product as the top of the line model for a higher price, while offering the other models at a lower price point. Eventually the manufacturing process will be perfected and the cost will come down.

Now if Apple was actually feeling pressure from the other tablet makers, then maybe there would be a reason to take a hit of profits. Nothing I can see out there suggests that though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The iPhone 4 display, which still hasn't been matched by competitors,
seemed like it would be too pricey at current price points. Apple's scale and investments in the tech could make it feasible for the iPad 3. That could even mean losing some profit on the device to secure the tablet market for the foreseeable future.
post #7 of 44
"And because Apple has designed the iPad user interface from the ground up to be resolution independent, doubling the resolution doesn't have the same drawbacks involved with boosting pixel density on desktop or notebook systems."

This is a stupid statement. The interface is not resolution independent, otherwise they could make the display *any* size they want and things would work fine. They have to double the pixel count in both directions to make it easy to scale bitmaps w/o having them look funny.
post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Blasphemy. Losing profit? Apple has a big fancy new spaceship to built. It needs the profit. If Apple can't get the product out for the same price while making about the same profit, it will take the same approach it always has taken. Namely, offer that product as the top of the line model for a higher price, while offering the other models at a lower price point. Eventually the manufacturing process will be perfected and the cost will come down.

Now if Apple was actually feeling pressure from the other tablet makers, then maybe there would be a reason to take a hit of profits. Nothing I can see out there suggests that though.

I misspoke. I mean taking a slightly lower profit margin in the short term in order to secure greater profits in the long term.

It's not an issue that the competition will overtake the iPad at all. There is no evidence of that; but if they can get a Retina Display on the iPad 3 when the competition wouldn't be able to begin to compete with such tech for several years they will have created another natural monopoly vis-Ã*-vis the iPod. I'd say that's worth losing a couple percent in gross profit for the first couple quarters of the iPad 3 launch.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #9 of 44
Retina display or not, iPad 3 is going to shine like a diamond in the rough.
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
post #10 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I suspect it will be more expensive though, with such a screen.

Apple will never do that.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #11 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

"And because Apple has designed the iPad user interface from the ground up to be resolution independent, doubling the resolution doesn't have the same drawbacks involved with boosting pixel density on desktop or notebook systems."

This is a stupid statement. The interface is not resolution independent, otherwise they could make the display *any* size they want and things would work fine. They have to double the pixel count in both directions to make it easy to scale bitmaps w/o having them look funny.

The numbers quoted in the article are double the current pixel count in both directions. Are you just questioning the "resolution independent" comment?
post #12 of 44
Brilliant!

(Pun fully intended)
post #13 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The numbers quoted in the article are double the current pixel count in both directions. Are you just questioning the "resolution independent comment"?

I must say that in the article the aspect ratio is wrong. The actual pixel for width and height is 1024*768, if it is the double (this make all sense) the resolution of iPAD3 would be 2048*1536, not 2048*1046 (like the post on the article)...

I hope that Apple could bring us a beautiful resolution like the iPhone4.
post #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiethunter View Post

I must say that in the article the aspect ratio is wrong. The actual pixel for width and height is 1024*768, if it is the double (this make all sense) the resolution of iPAD3 would be 2048*1536, not 2048*1046 (like the post on the article)...

I hope that Apple could bring us a beautiful resolution like the iPhone4.

I'm confused - the article does say 2048 x 1536, except in the table where it says 1546 (presumably one of those rare AI typos).
post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The iPhone 4 display, which still hasn't been matched by competitors, seemed like it would be too pricey at current price points. Apple's scale and investments in the tech could make it feasible for the iPad 3. That could even mean losing some profit on the device to secure the tablet market for the foreseeable future.

Well if they can keep it the same price, that would be great. Great for their market-share and great for me as a purchaser. But these screens are so new, there are still yield issues. I suspect there will be a small rise at least, say $50? Let's wait and see...

On a related note, I just love how Apple are pushing technology forward so aggressively. It is a refreshing change from the stagnation of the Microsoft dominated era. And it makes market sense too, because competitors are forced to rush things, causing them to make mistakes.
post #16 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm confused - the article does say 2048 x 1536, except in the table where it says 1546 (presumably one of those rare AI typos).

Just a typo. AI has an odd habit of writing in-depth articles but creating low-rent graphs filled with typos they don't readily fix. I don't get it. I wish AI would devote some time to creating quality infographs to complement their other content.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Well if they can keep it the same price, that would be great. Great for their market-share and great for me as a purchaser. But these screens are so new, there are still yield issues. I suspect there will be a small rise at least, say $50? Let's wait and see...

On a related note, I just love how Apple are pushing technology forward so aggressively. It is a refreshing change from the stagnation of the Microsoft dominated era. And it makes market sense too, because competitors are forced to rush things, causing them to make mistakes.

I think they'll have to go with an A6 with a much upgraded GPU, at least, for that resolution display but they may be able to save money by keeping the current 16, 32 and 64GB capacities at the same price points for another year but use denser NAND. That alone could offset the costs even though I'd love to see 128GB in the next model but that's because I'm finally using the crap out of my iPad 2 and wish I didn't get the 16GB model.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #17 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Just a typo. AI has an odd habit of writing in-depth articles but creating low-rent graphs filled with typos they don't readily fix. I don't get it. I wish AI would devote some time to creating quality infographs to complement their other content.

Agreed - but I couldn't see where the other poster was reading 2048 x 1046.
post #18 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

"And because Apple has designed the iPad user interface from the ground up to be resolution independent, doubling the resolution doesn't have the same drawbacks involved with boosting pixel density on desktop or notebook systems."

This is a stupid statement. The interface is not resolution independent, otherwise they could make the display *any* size they want and things would work fine. They have to double the pixel count in both directions to make it easy to scale bitmaps w/o having them look funny.

By definition bitmaps are not resolution independent, they map to a display pixel by pixel. If you think about it a bit you would realize that a data format that is based on pixels could never be resolution independent. Further resizing bit maps is a function of the CPU/GPU not the display.

The fact is any vector or font drawing operation on iOS devices are done independent of screen resolution. This capability has also come to Lion for the Macs. it is one of the reasons many developers had such an easy time when iPhone came out with the Retina screen. If they had followed Apples recommendations they had a minimal amount of work to do, generally focused on bitmaps.
post #19 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think they'll have to go with an A6 with a much upgraded GPU, at least, for that resolution display but they may be able to save money by keeping the current 16, 32 and 64GB capacities at the same price points for another year but use denser NAND. That alone could offset the costs even though I'd love to see 128GB in the next model but that's because I'm finally using the crap out of my iPad 2 and wish I didn't get the 16GB model.

That's a good point about the denser NAND. I'm not sure they will *necessarily* need a better GPU, because there is no way games will run at native res anyway. e.g. on a PC, to run games at that res, you need a big fat dual-GPU video card with fans up the wazoo. So I suspect games will stay at 1024, even on iPad 3. (heh, I just typed ipad with a small "P" and Lion auto-corrected it!)

The only apps that will run at full res are productivity apps. But you are right, there are probably 3D productivity apps too, that will need a better GPU. The main benefit I see to a higher res screen is beautiful fonts and HD movies. The fonts is an important one, because I think people really notice text quality. After using HD text on an iPad 3, the competitors will look really cheap in comparison.
post #20 of 44
That's more believable. As rumors go, I hope this one pans out.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #21 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The iPhone 4 display...seemed like it would be too pricey at current price points... That could even mean losing some profit on the device to secure the tablet market for the foreseeable future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

...but they may be able to save money by keeping the current 16, 32 and 64GB capacities at the same price points for another year.

You beat me to the point about them not upgrading capacities to help cover the cost of the high res display. Same thing they did for the iPhone 4, which was the first time they didn't double the capacity with an upgrade. They could also not upgrade the camera, which is also a typical upgrade for each new iDevice revision (either adding a camera or improving it).

If Apple were to offer two versions of the iPad, one with the high res display and one with double the storage, all else being the same including price, I'd be hard pressed to choose but would likely go with the increased storage. (Not that I need 128 GBs, but that I'd like 32 and 64 GB options and the low and mid price points.)
post #22 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Just a typo. AI has an odd habit of writing in-depth articles but creating low-rent graphs filled with typos they don't readily fix. I don't get it. I wish AI would devote some time to creating quality infographs to complement their other content.

It is a hopeless situation. There is little value place on this info outside of the crowd that reads the site regularly. Plus any thing published is quickly forgotten as it scrolls of the bottom of the page. Finally the graphics are there to support speculation and are thus a figment.

Quote:
I think they'll have to go with an A6 with a much upgraded GPU, at least, for that resolution display but they may be able to save money by keeping the current 16, 32 and 64GB capacities at the same price points for another year but use denser NAND.

It will be interesting to see what happens. For example they could double the clock rate of the GPU. This might be feasible at the smaller process geometries. In general I think you are right though such a screen would require a much improved A6. In part the chip will need to be vastly improved at data handling. That might imply a new memory and cache subsystem.

As to flash I think Apple is in a pickle here. Flash in the smaller geometries just isn't that reliable this would lead to the need for a far more advanced controller. In a way this could be a good thing if they invested in a blade like flash module. Right now iOS devices take a fairly simple approach to flash because the failure rate is manageable and generally you can get ten years of safe storage of data. You loose that with the extremely dense flash.
Quote:
That alone could offset the costs even though I'd love to see 128GB in the next model but that's because I'm finally using the crap out of my iPad 2 and wish I didn't get the 16GB model.

Yeah the sad fact is the more you use your iOS devices the more you need a larger secondary store. Flash is really cheap compared to downloads from the cloud. Not to mention flash is orders of magnitude faster.

In any event what bothers me about this report is the idea that pilot production has already begun. It just seems a little early for that if the device is to debut in March.
post #23 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Having created a user interface that works well on a 9.7 inch display from the tablet's inception, Apple freed itself to dramatically boost the iPad's resolution independently of its screen size in order to deliver a very realistic depiction of photos, ebooks, documents, videos, and dynamic content that users navigate via touch while holding the display at distance where pixel density is readily noticeable.


Noticeable as hell. Recently I was doing some reasearch and I couldn't read text on the iPad cause the letters are small and when I try to read them all I see is pixels. I guess I expect too much because of iPhone display, but at times I'm frustrated that I can't read text I can read on an iPhone on a device that is much larger.

I did not notice it much before but now I kinda see the artifacts more and more.

I think retina is a must for the next version, as well as RAM bump (so that apps remain running and safari can keep all its tabs without having to reload them). I think a slightly faster A5 would even be all right, without the need for A6 yet, if that helps bring retina to the market at same price points.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #24 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In any event what bothers me about this report is the idea that pilot production has already begun. It just seems a little early for that if the device is to debut in March.

The 960x640 display rumours for the iPhone 4 were around a solid 3 months before the device launched. Sure, this rumour has been going on for more than 6 months but there is 1) precedence with Apple stepping the pixel count with a .quadrupling, and 2) the iPhone 4 still has less pixels than the current iPad. To me that means a 6 month lead time for testing and production isn't unrealistic for this degree of change.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #25 of 44
Their is the rumor about Apple investing $1 Billion into the Sharp LCD plant to help raise the yield of screens for the iPad.

With $80 Billion cash on hand they have a lot of room to leverage special treatment from suppliers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Blasphemy. Losing profit? Apple has a big fancy new spaceship to built. It needs the profit. If Apple can't get the product out for the same price while making about the same profit, it will take the same approach it always has taken. Namely, offer that product as the top of the line model for a higher price, while offering the other models at a lower price point. Eventually the manufacturing process will be perfected and the cost will come down.
post #26 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

That's a good point about the denser NAND. I'm not sure they will *necessarily* need a better GPU, because there is no way games will run at native res anyway. e.g.

Actually I don't buy that as I suspect games will be the first to leverage the new screens. That being said there is the question of Apple being able to maintain performance parity with the iPad2s screen.

Remember however that A6 is rumored to be 28nm which is like a drop of two process sizes. So some performance benefits will come for free. I'm talking here higher clock rates in the GPU while maintaining the power (watts) performance profile. Even with an upgraded GPU integrated that gives the machine more GPU cores I don't see this as the big challenge.

The big challenge will be moving the data around. It will be interesting to see what sort of RAM and cacheing system they come up with. A screen of this size would require at a minimum a screen buffer size of 75MB which is a lot really. However I often think that it would be a huge benefit to put a dedicated screen buffer right on the chip next to the GPU. This would greatly reduce pressure on the cache and transfers to and from general purpose RAM. It would seem to be more useful than adding yet another core. Apple could easily double that so that the GPU has even more fast RAM to enjoy.

This idea of building RAM onto the SoC may seem far out there but think about modern processors and the large caches contained there in. A 150-200MB of on chip RAM, for the GPU, would be very doable.
Quote:
on a PC, to run games at that res, you need a big fat dual-GPU video card with fans up the wazoo.

Yes but on a PC people running at those resolutions are expecting top of the line performance. IPad is very very far from dedicated graphics performance on the iPad. At the minimal Apple can't loose performance which I think everybody agrees with. However it might very well be possible to actually nudge the performance of the machine a bit.

Designing chips is all about trade offs. I'm certain Apples engineers have more info to work with than I do but consider a few things. They will likely be able to bump clock rate to the CPUs without impacting power. They will have vastly more real-estate for functionality on the chip. A new GPU is already in the wings, that GPU could support OpenCL and far more cores. I really don't think Apple will fail here.
Quote:
So I suspect games will stay at 1024, even on iPad 3. (heh, I just typed ipad with a small "P" and Lion auto-corrected it!)

Actually I think the opposite, I expect games to be the first to exploit the display. That is as long as they don't significantly loose frame rates. The question becomes then can they actually do that. I suspect it is possible, we might even see a slight increase in performance. The 2X drop in feature size means there is the potential for a lot of extra transistors to be put into play here. It really comes down to where Apples assigns priorities.
Quote:
The only apps that will run at full res are productivity apps. But you are right, there are probably 3D productivity apps too, that will need a better GPU. The main benefit I see to a higher res screen is beautiful fonts and HD movies. The fonts is an important one, because I think people really notice text quality. After using HD text on an iPad 3, the competitors will look really cheap in comparison.

I had real hopes for a strong iPad competitor by now. Sadly they are dropping like flies. The thing is competition would put pressure on Apple to deliver a good experience here. Without that pressure I suspect we are at risk of a modest update in the A6. It is actually a bit frustrating because Apple has a history of becoming complacent when it has a successful product on it's hands.

I guess the sad part here is that it looks like we will be waiting months for iPad 3.
post #27 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

AI has an odd habit of writing in-depth articles but creating low-rent graphs filled with typos they don't readily fix.

I haven't laughed so hard in a while, thanks.
post #28 of 44
It is completely possible that terms are being confused here. Generally I would call production runs this far out to be prototype runs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The 960x640 display rumours for the iPhone 4 were around a solid 3 months before the device launched. Sure, this rumour has been going on for more than 6 months but there is 1) precedence with Apple stepping the pixel count with a .quadrupling, and 2) the iPhone 4 still has less pixels than the current iPad. To me that means a 6 month lead time for testing and production isn't unrealistic for this degree of change.

Well it isn't really that big of a change, basically a new screen being hooked up to a motherboard. The hardware is likely running off the same production lines now setup for iPad production.

If this was December and the speculation was still around a March debut I might be more inclined to agree. On the otherhand maybe Apple has learned something from it's other problems where they rushed to fast. Still I'm thinking the volume rumored here is still higher than I would expect and thus makes one wonder what is up.
post #29 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It will be interesting to see what happens. For example they could double the clock rate of the GPU. This might be feasible at the smaller process geometries. In general I think you are right though such a screen would require a much improved A6. In part the chip will need to be vastly improved at data handling. That might imply a new memory and cache subsystem.

With vector graphics the real issue is fill rate, not geometry processing. And fill rate is relatively easy to optimize because it is completely parallelizable by adding additional fill units in the fixed pipeline. The VAST majority of iPad software will take advantage of relatively static fill-rate limited vector graphics so the iPad GPU does not need a complete doubling of GPU power and because vector graphics do not have a fixed size to primary memory requirement ratio like scaled bitmaps do, a doubling of resolution does not automatically eat quadruple the RAM requirement to support the GUI.

Yes a hi-res ipad will require more CPU, GPU and memory to handle the job, but nowhere near the quadrupling many folks naively think. Games will probably be recommended to stay at 1024x768 max because they would need a quadrupling plus of performance to handle the resolution, a task most desktops and laptops are not even up to with aftermarket cards. It takes a dedicated gaming/simulation rig to drive full screen graphic at resolutions of 2048x1536 and >60fps minimum, with lots of heat handling, so I think game devs won't have a problem with maintaining the 1024x768 resolution target and let hardware pixel-double on the back end of the pipeline, something which is already built into the A5 and iOS.

Quote:
Yeah the sad fact is the more you use your iOS devices the more you need a larger secondary store. Flash is really cheap compared to downloads from the cloud. Not to mention flash is orders of magnitude faster.

In any event what bothers me about this report is the idea that pilot production has already begun. It just seems a little early for that if the device is to debut in March.

Yeah, 1.5 million units now is awfully hard to do and sit on that long, stretches believability. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear of an arrest in a couple months related to leaks and stock manipulations/insider information and that some of these reports were crafted plants with canaries in them.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #30 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


According to that report, the chip is destined to be unveiled in the iPad 3 no earlier than the second quarter of 2012, suggesting that device could arrive roughly one year after the launch of the iPad 2.

So basically, the iPad 3 is going to be announced roughly 1 year after the iPad 2, which is right in line with Apple's normal release schedule, so everything seems to be on track.

Those retina display iPad 3 and iPad 2.5 in 2011 people piss me off. That has got to be one of the dumbest and most ignorant Apple rumors ever. Those people should be buying HP TouchPads instead if they want a product with a really quick release cycle.
post #31 of 44
The "Retina screen on iPad 3... Woot!" crowd has got to go.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A report from the Taiwan Economic News earlier this month singled out Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. as the new manufacturer of the chip, reportedly snagging a role formally filled by Samsung.

Formerly. Formerly. Not formally.
post #33 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I skipped the iPad 2 so will be looking at getting the 3. I suspect it will be more expensive though, with such a screen. But an impressive device and probably irresistible.

Yup, me too. Really, really looking forward to the new display. It's my only complaint about my iPad 1. Other than that it's really quite awesome!
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Noticeable as hell. Recently I was doing some reasearch and I couldn't read text on the iPad cause the letters are small and when I try to read them all I see is pixels. I guess I expect too much because of iPhone display, but at times I'm frustrated that I can't read text I can read on an iPhone on a device that is much larger.

I did not notice it much before but now I kinda see the artifacts more and more.

I think retina is a must for the next version, as well as RAM bump (so that apps remain running and safari can keep all its tabs without having to reload them). I think a slightly faster A5 would even be all right, without the need for A6 yet, if that helps bring retina to the market at same price points.

As long as your line isn't, "I see dead pixels."
post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Actually I don't buy that as I suspect games will be the first to leverage the new screens. That being said there is the question of Apple being able to maintain performance parity with the iPad2s screen.

Remember however that A6 is rumored to be 28nm which is like a drop of two process sizes. So some performance benefits will come for free. I'm talking here higher clock rates in the GPU while maintaining the power (watts) performance profile. Even with an upgraded GPU integrated that gives the machine more GPU cores I don't see this as the big challenge.

The big challenge will be moving the data around. It will be interesting to see what sort of RAM and cacheing system they come up with. A screen of this size would require at a minimum a screen buffer size of 75MB which is a lot really. However I often think that it would be a huge benefit to put a dedicated screen buffer right on the chip next to the GPU. This would greatly reduce pressure on the cache and transfers to and from general purpose RAM. It would seem to be more useful than adding yet another core. Apple could easily double that so that the GPU has even more fast RAM to enjoy.

This idea of building RAM onto the SoC may seem far out there but think about modern processors and the large caches contained there in. A 150-200MB of on chip RAM, for the GPU, would be very doable.

Yes but on a PC people running at those resolutions are expecting top of the line performance. IPad is very very far from dedicated graphics performance on the iPad. At the minimal Apple can't loose performance which I think everybody agrees with. However it might very well be possible to actually nudge the performance of the machine a bit.

Designing chips is all about trade offs. I'm certain Apples engineers have more info to work with than I do but consider a few things. They will likely be able to bump clock rate to the CPUs without impacting power. They will have vastly more real-estate for functionality on the chip. A new GPU is already in the wings, that GPU could support OpenCL and far more cores. I really don't think Apple will fail here.

Actually I think the opposite, I expect games to be the first to exploit the display. That is as long as they don't significantly loose frame rates. The question becomes then can they actually do that. I suspect it is possible, we might even see a slight increase in performance. The 2X drop in feature size means there is the potential for a lot of extra transistors to be put into play here. It really comes down to where Apples assigns priorities.


I had real hopes for a strong iPad competitor by now. Sadly they are dropping like flies. The thing is competition would put pressure on Apple to deliver a good experience here. Without that pressure I suspect we are at risk of a modest update in the A6. It is actually a bit frustrating because Apple has a history of becoming complacent when it has a successful product on it's hands.

I guess the sad part here is that it looks like we will be waiting months for iPad 3.

You mean like that awful iPod line of products?

Competition has little impact on Apple. The company thrives on innovating, improving and delivering a better user experience with each new release.
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It's certainly not looking like Apple has to release the next iPad with a 2048x1536 resolution display, but it's Game, Set, Match if they do.

I wonder if an even larger iPad is feasible down the line. I refer to physical dimensions not resolution here. If they have a higher resolutions a larger iPad at the current resolution or even higher is possible.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikertwin View Post

Formerly. Formerly. Not formally.

I suspect a lot of these slip ups are Apple's new auto correction... a tiny typo and you get a whole new wombat these dogs.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I wonder if an even larger iPad is feasible down the line. I refer to physical dimensions not resolution here. If they have a higher resolutions a larger iPad at the current resolution or even higher is possible.

I would expect a larger iPhone before a larger iPad.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I would expect a larger iPhone before a larger iPad.

mmm ... ok. I have a suspicion though that as iOS advances and gains more cross over with OS X a larger format may emerge, even if it seems less portable. New designs may save a lot more weight in a year or two and as software for creation grows a larger screen may be nice, as in an iPadPro 17" perhaps.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I suspect a lot of these slip ups are Apple's new auto correction... a tiny typo and you get a whole new wombat these dogs.

I KNOW. I mean, I love Lion's autocorrect; it's a great new tool it just sometimes acts like a complete tool and gives me the wrong words.

I have only one complaint with it: I want to be able to define my own corrections. You know, like how the applications of the iWork suite let you define autocorrections. I want that SYSTEM-WIDE.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple nears trial production of high-res iPad 3 coming in early 2012
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple nears trial production of high-res iPad 3 coming in early 2012