Originally Posted by Hattig
The RSX in the PS3 can do either 240 or 400 GFLOPS (Wikipedia says around 400, other people say around 240 GFLOPS). On top of that, the PS3's CPU can do ~150 GFLOPS (6 SPUs available for games).
However the GPU architecture in PowerVR is more efficient due to the tile based renderer, but not enough to make up for the above in raw power.
Yeah, I was a bit iffy on the GFlops for the PS3, not sure where exactly I got the low number, the other estimates seem very high but in reality the graphics performance of the PS3 is not that great. So maybe not a good comparison because GFlops is not really directly related to visual performance.
In any case though that's one metric in measuring the PowerVR chips.
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
If the numbers are correct (and I think they are) logic dictates that that is the case.
It seems a lot of graphics power, but the device would be underpowered if it wasn't that fast.
It could be ofcourse that the GFlops are close to the 57.6 GFlops needed (say 50 or so) that would be acceptable I think.
My estimate was that they had to choose the Rogue version to be able to achieve the performance needed, and this version is available.
It could also be that Apple has made an adaptation of the current version of the GPU with, say 400MHz quad cores.
We will see.
(Nice of you to show the numbers, that definitely improves the discussion.)
Cheers, so is our bet on or off? $5 Paypal on the table. Deal or no deal? GFlops or any other official metric.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Wouldn't that be 2K video on the iPad 3 if you are doing a pixel for pixel rendering?
I put it as "3K" in quotes because it's sort of inbetween 2K and 3K resolution, plus it's 4:3.
2K video is 2048×1080 and 4K is 4096×2160. Red's "3K" Scarlet has a 3072x1620 or so sensor.
Retina Display on iPad 3 is QXGA [2048x1536], based on the evidence. The only thing is no video is made in QXGA resolution or ratio.
In my mockup above it's cropped and downscaled from a Red 4K sample to QXGA ratio.
Suffice to say if there is ever a chance of iPad 2/3/4/5 Retina Display capable of displaying QXGA video, the best results would be using a 3K or better digital camera or scanned film to have really nice video on iPad Retina. As we know, even 2K video will have to be upscaled on an iPad Retina, let alone BluRays.
Also, as shown above, for digital projections of superHD presentations if the iPad Retina can video mirror QXGA, you would need the 4K digital projector which is what I think digital cinema has standardised on (2K is too low, and there's no common 3K digital cinema projectors).
Very exciting times. The video resolution is simply insane on an iPad Retina. I forsee digital film really taking on the iPad Retina as a portable, simple monitor of sorts if it's ever able to interface with the iPad Retina. Certainly for digital still cameras no doubt the iPad will be essential for mobile viewing of high-res digital stills ~ as some have mentioned.
And if the iPad Retina can play 1080p video, you can see it in native pixels on the iPad Retina. No mean feat on 10".
I imagine as we speak China is churning out portable Blu Ray players with this kind of 10" panel technology.
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
If the current iPad 2 already outclasses its current resolution, things don't have to stretch quite as far.
Not so sure about that, even the latest Infinity Blade on iPad 2 doesn't have a freely moving user-controlled camera, so I think the iPad 2 is mostly maxxed out as it is.