It can only play 720p video... when mirroring the iPad's screen. There are no hardware limitations preventing the iPad from outputting to 1080p. 9x the GPU power comparing to the original iPad (which produced graphics akin to the original Xbox) also speaks volumes.
That's not what apple's tech specs say. According to that, the biggest video file it plays back is 720.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustReelFilms
RAM size is moot when you consider the speed of data between the CPU.
If that is the case then why is performance better on the iPhone 4 than the original iPad when they have the same CPU but double the ram on the former? And if ram size is really moot then why did they spend the money to go from 256 to 512?
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Just because you think there were plenty of complaints doesn't make it so...
I was responding to your post that insisted that there would be no complaints for a device that hasn't even shipped yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant
GarageBand and iMovie.
I was asking about apps for xbox and PS3, sorry that wasn't clear from the bit I quoted.
Well BS that we need to get this info from a fourth party. Further it is BS in the sense that Apple does publish many specs for the iPads but prefers to screw over the consummer with respect to this one important parameter.
RAM is very important, if Apple has stayed with 256MB the upgrade would be worthless. From the day it debuted iPad one has suffered from the lack of RAM.
Oh, don't be a twiddledaddle (yes, I just made that word up) ... Once the iPad 2 is in the field, jailbreakers, hackers, tear-downers and what nots will dissect every nanometer of it.
Here's a specific example of a benefit of more ram.
Now that apps like GB are coming to iPad, more ram is necessary for higher track counts, more and better plugins, and better quality sampled instruments. Sure the current model can run the new version of GB but one with more ram has the potential to run an even more powerful version. And that version inevitably will ship down the road - less ram is a factor in support for OS or app updates getting dropped sooner.
Ok guy - is this what you call "avoiding detailing technical specifications?" as the article states?:
:Writes a long list of all specs; that is, 95% of the list has no meaning in this discussion:
Wrong.
In a MacBook Pro tech specs page, the amount of cache, the type of cache, the speed of the bus of both processor and memory (were applicable) would be specified (not to mention DDR type)
Quote:
But there ARE software limitations. Read the Tech Specs before starting to make crap up, guy.
:Unnecessarily long list. Really, did you think I didn't know that?
You know that this OS is called? 4.3. It's a MINOR update. Full 1080p could be very well coming on iOS 5 (due July), the same way a software preference for the Mute/Rotation switch came with iOS 4.3
Here's a specific example of a benefit of more ram.
Now that apps like GB are coming to iPad, more ram is necessary for higher track counts, more and better plugins, and better quality sampled instruments. Sure the current model can run the new version of GB but one with more ram has the potential to run an even more powerful version. And that version inevitably will ship down the road - less ram is a factor in support for OS or app updates getting dropped sooner.
if you make GB on the ipad too good it will cannibalize Mac sales
People should look more at how it performs and not at the numbers.
Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
Well, those complaints were pretty significant. I gave up on Safari for the iPad and only use iCab now. The constant reloading of tabs in Safari drove me crazy - and I would suspect that this is due to lack of RAM.
I use AtomicWeb for almost all web surfing. It survives my most vicious testing, ie. multiple pages across up to 10 tabs (I guess I'm not a one-page-kind-of-guy)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kube
Although I agree that the current iPad "seems" to need more RAM, its hard to know. My main gripe is in Safari, which, when I go pack a page, seems to waste a lot of time reloading the data. This seems to be more the case since 4.2.
But two caveats:
1. The real question is real-world usage. Are there stalls? or is it smooth?
2. If certain actions slow down, its hard to know the bottleneck.
It may turn out the the bump from 256 to 512 fixes most bottlenecks. Maybe not. We'll see.
More seriously though there are some major bottlenecks that can occur at 256 that 512 alleviates. The iPhone 4 is pretty snappy and during the iPad 2 Keynote things were pretty swish. So, 512 = good, 1GB = worry about that next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kube
I a related question. The keynote presentation made a big point about up to a 9x increase in graphics speed and 2x increase in general computation speed. Other than manipulating photogaphic images, where would the graphics speed increase show up?
This was the most UNDERSTATED part of everything. Basically if it is true the A5 can now deliver PS3-or-better quality graphics. Not just for games but for all sorts of amazing apps that leverage GPU acceleration. This is huge. If 9x is true and not just pulled out of the air, this is massive.
And pretty much Apple will find it hard to resist releasing an A5 or A6 powered gaming console.
The A5 was probably meant to drive an iPad Retina Display but the display manufacturers probably could do the volume Apple needed.
The iPad has not suffered from a 'lack of ram' - the only complaints I have heard about were Safari related and my understanding is that this was an application tuning issue.
Otherwise the iPad was fine.
You really don't know what you are talking about. You can not tune the need for RAM away. Beyond that many apps can't even be implemented on iPad 1 due to the lack of RAM.
Yes the RAM is integrated into the SOC, so its part of the CPU itself.
Honestly 512 isn't enough. If I'm buying a new iPad less than a year later, I want it to be able to handle stuff thats more memory intensive than what my phone can do. 1 gig should be the minimum. I'm still buying the new iPad, but 256 isn't enough on the current model, and 512 will soon not be enough on the new one.
That is not correct. 256MB is plenty and the only reason they increased the RAM to 512MB is due to the addition of the two cameras. The 5MP camera need more buffer memory to capture the photos and videos. Also the inclusion of iMovies will beneffit from the extra memory.
Stop comparing the iPad with regular PCs. iOS 4 is way more efficient than any of the full fledged OSes and it uses way less memory.
512MB with higher bandwidth is plenty of memory.
Do you know how much RAM does the XBOX 360 or the PS3 have?
Apparently some people care more about specs than functionality.
It's a marketing ploy and people that look at specs will think they are getting something more.
Same as Video cards with 2GB of VRAM vs 1GB of VRAM, there is no performance difference. Just because memory is cheap, it doesnt mean that we need to put 2Gigs of it in the iPad. It adds weight and it decreases battery life.
Apple engineers know this and they optimize the usage of RAM.
Video formats supported: H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format
Interestingly, unofficially H.264 High Profile is supported up to 720p ... it has been verified in video encoding forums. But definitely no 1080p as yet.
If there was a large market for people who need more ram then Apple would supply the product... but why bother when you might only sell 1000 extra units.
Uh, they trumpet the new "dual core 1GHz" A5 chip on the front page of the iPad site, and list basically all of the tech specs under "Tech Specs", except RAM - probably because it's the one area from a hardware standpoint that another device (ie Xoom) clearly outdoes it. Plus the fact that Xoom can both play and output 1080p content while the iPad can digitally output 1080p but can only actually play 720p (cleverly presented by Apple, i must say).
What 1080p content are you going to play? no streaming services do 1080p. the on board cameras can do 720p at best. Cloners are big on the spec sheet game...that is the only thing they can compete on, meaningless spec sheets.
If that is the case then why is performance better on the iPhone 4 than the original iPad when they have the same CPU but double the ram on the former? And if ram size is really moot then why did they spend the money to go from 256 to 512?
Is it? One reason why the iPhone 4 has double, voice and data. Keep in mind that the iPod Touch 4G has only 256MB as well and it came out after the iPhone 4. The iPhone is a phone first and foremost and it has to reserve a percentage of that memory for that function along with SMS/MMS messaging.
My 3GS with it's 256MB has at most 131MB free with nothing running.
You really don't know what you are talking about. You can not tune the need for RAM away. Beyond that many apps can't even be implemented on iPad 1 due to the lack of RAM.
Implemented how? Last time I checked, the iPad can run anything the iPhone 4 can unless it requires a special feature like the gyroscope. There is not a single App that requires the iPhone 4's 512MB of RAM.
It's sad when the trolls don't know enough about the OS to post even entertaining trolly comments "more ram to run more apps" ?
Exactly. It amazes me how they claim that 512MB is not enough while non of then wrote a single line of code for iOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Designed to intentionally reload the same page instead of just caching it and bringing it up instantly? Why would you design something to be slower and use more bandwidth.
I don't think it is a RAM issue. I did notice that some web pages don't reload when I go back to them.
Yes, it is. And this is probably the most prominent area where you will notice the effect of insufficient RAM (insufficient for what you want to do at that moment, which is holding multiple web pages in RAM).
IPad 1 has less free RAM for apps that the 3Gs. It is a very significant problem if your needs are more demanding than cruising to Drudgereport.
Quote:
But I am hard pressed to offer any other app where you notice this effect. Note that basically all apps are designed with the RAM limitation in mind, thus they are designed to operate well with the existing RAM amount.
For the most part this is true. The important thing that people need to realize though is that that means some apps can't be designed for iPad 1. I expect to see a whole new round of iPad apps in a few months for apps that run on iPad 2 only.
Design constraints also mean that some iPad one apps aren't really what their developers envisioned. The simple act of trying to cram an app into to little memory slows it down and leads to less than clean implementations.
Quote:
Web pages however are usually not designed with the RAM limitations of the iPad in mind, for sure some are, but most are not.
Yes exactly! If a web page has the iPad in mind or is suitably simple, Safari on iPad one works great. However if that page downloads globs of code and data you will have problems.
Beyond that you can have problems with other apps too. Generally it revolves around files that are no problem on a PC but suffer in an iPad app.
In any event thanks for speaking up. It is sad so many defend iPad for an obvious fault.
I hope its 1GB and not 512MB, it would be more than enough for today but might lead to quick obsolescence, look at the iPhone 3G running iOS 4.
OF COURSE! So next year you will upgrade to iPad 3 with 1GB of RAM :-)
Seriously, though, doubling the RAM *far* more than doubles the amount of memory available for use applications. Keep in mind that iOS uses up a huge chunk of the current 256MB RAM. iOS 4.3 is *not* going to use up twice as much memory as 4.2. This means that most of the available free RAM will be available to applications. They may see 3-4 times as much free RAM as before. Big win.
Video formats supported: H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
When connected to a 1080p tv, the Xoom will "actually play" 1080p video. Conversely, while the iPad2 can technically output 1080p, it can only actually play 720p video, even when connected to a 1080p TV.
That's not entirely accurate. While iOS only natively handles files up to 720p. Anyone could in fact write an app to play 1080p video, which in turn means it will "actually play" 1080p video. The graphics support is there.
It's like saying my iPhone or iPad cannot play AVI, DivX or Ogg video files just because it's not supported natively by the OS... I can download MANY different apps to play these types of video files and I'm sure these same apps will allow anyone to play 1080p video as well.
Apple is not trying to be "clever" when they say the video out supports 1080p.
Do you know how much RAM does the XBOX 360 or the PS3 have?
Actually, the biggest problem with the PS3 is its lack of video RAM. Porting games to it is a real pain in the ass.
Despite its Cell processor and Blu-Ray drive, the PS3 has often struggles to match the apparently "out-dated" Xbox 360 in terms of graphics. Blu-Ray is capable of holding huge textures but the PS3 can't take advantage. You can have all of the processing power in the world but it's wasted if it's not matched by an equally high amount of RAM.
Comments
It can only play 720p video... when mirroring the iPad's screen. There are no hardware limitations preventing the iPad from outputting to 1080p. 9x the GPU power comparing to the original iPad (which produced graphics akin to the original Xbox) also speaks volumes.
That's not what apple's tech specs say. According to that, the biggest video file it plays back is 720.
RAM size is moot when you consider the speed of data between the CPU.
If that is the case then why is performance better on the iPhone 4 than the original iPad when they have the same CPU but double the ram on the former? And if ram size is really moot then why did they spend the money to go from 256 to 512?
Just because you think there were plenty of complaints doesn't make it so...
I was responding to your post that insisted that there would be no complaints for a device that hasn't even shipped yet.
GarageBand and iMovie.
I was asking about apps for xbox and PS3, sorry that wasn't clear from the bit I quoted.
Well BS that we need to get this info from a fourth party. Further it is BS in the sense that Apple does publish many specs for the iPads but prefers to screw over the consummer with respect to this one important parameter.
RAM is very important, if Apple has stayed with 256MB the upgrade would be worthless. From the day it debuted iPad one has suffered from the lack of RAM.
Oh, don't be a twiddledaddle (yes, I just made that word up) ... Once the iPad 2 is in the field, jailbreakers, hackers, tear-downers and what nots will dissect every nanometer of it.
Now that apps like GB are coming to iPad, more ram is necessary for higher track counts, more and better plugins, and better quality sampled instruments. Sure the current model can run the new version of GB but one with more ram has the potential to run an even more powerful version. And that version inevitably will ship down the road - less ram is a factor in support for OS or app updates getting dropped sooner.
Ok guy - is this what you call "avoiding detailing technical specifications?" as the article states?
:Writes a long list of all specs; that is, 95% of the list has no meaning in this discussion:
Wrong.
In a MacBook Pro tech specs page, the amount of cache, the type of cache, the speed of the bus of both processor and memory (were applicable) would be specified (not to mention DDR type)
But there ARE software limitations. Read the Tech Specs before starting to make crap up, guy.
:Unnecessarily long list. Really, did you think I didn't know that?
You know that this OS is called? 4.3. It's a MINOR update. Full 1080p could be very well coming on iOS 5 (due July), the same way a software preference for the Mute/Rotation switch came with iOS 4.3
Here's a specific example of a benefit of more ram.
Now that apps like GB are coming to iPad, more ram is necessary for higher track counts, more and better plugins, and better quality sampled instruments. Sure the current model can run the new version of GB but one with more ram has the potential to run an even more powerful version. And that version inevitably will ship down the road - less ram is a factor in support for OS or app updates getting dropped sooner.
if you make GB on the ipad too good it will cannibalize Mac sales
I was responding to your post that insisted that there would be no complaints for a device that hasn't even shipped yet.
Read my post as a future event... hopefully it will then make sense to you. There was no insistence involved.
People should look more at how it performs and not at the numbers.
Thank you.
Well, those complaints were pretty significant. I gave up on Safari for the iPad and only use iCab now. The constant reloading of tabs in Safari drove me crazy - and I would suspect that this is due to lack of RAM.
I use AtomicWeb for almost all web surfing. It survives my most vicious testing, ie. multiple pages across up to 10 tabs (I guess I'm not a one-page-kind-of-guy)
Although I agree that the current iPad "seems" to need more RAM, its hard to know. My main gripe is in Safari, which, when I go pack a page, seems to waste a lot of time reloading the data. This seems to be more the case since 4.2.
But two caveats:
1. The real question is real-world usage. Are there stalls? or is it smooth?
2. If certain actions slow down, its hard to know the bottleneck.
It may turn out the the bump from 256 to 512 fixes most bottlenecks. Maybe not. We'll see.
More seriously though there are some major bottlenecks that can occur at 256 that 512 alleviates. The iPhone 4 is pretty snappy and during the iPad 2 Keynote things were pretty swish. So, 512 = good, 1GB = worry about that next year.
I a related question. The keynote presentation made a big point about up to a 9x increase in graphics speed and 2x increase in general computation speed. Other than manipulating photogaphic images, where would the graphics speed increase show up?
This was the most UNDERSTATED part of everything. Basically if it is true the A5 can now deliver PS3-or-better quality graphics. Not just for games but for all sorts of amazing apps that leverage GPU acceleration. This is huge. If 9x is true and not just pulled out of the air, this is massive.
And pretty much Apple will find it hard to resist releasing an A5 or A6 powered gaming console.
The A5 was probably meant to drive an iPad Retina Display but the display manufacturers probably could do the volume Apple needed.
You speak the BS.
The iPad has not suffered from a 'lack of ram' - the only complaints I have heard about were Safari related and my understanding is that this was an application tuning issue.
Otherwise the iPad was fine.
You really don't know what you are talking about. You can not tune the need for RAM away. Beyond that many apps can't even be implemented on iPad 1 due to the lack of RAM.
Yes the RAM is integrated into the SOC, so its part of the CPU itself.
Honestly 512 isn't enough. If I'm buying a new iPad less than a year later, I want it to be able to handle stuff thats more memory intensive than what my phone can do. 1 gig should be the minimum. I'm still buying the new iPad, but 256 isn't enough on the current model, and 512 will soon not be enough on the new one.
That is not correct. 256MB is plenty and the only reason they increased the RAM to 512MB is due to the addition of the two cameras. The 5MP camera need more buffer memory to capture the photos and videos. Also the inclusion of iMovies will beneffit from the extra memory.
Stop comparing the iPad with regular PCs. iOS 4 is way more efficient than any of the full fledged OSes and it uses way less memory.
512MB with higher bandwidth is plenty of memory.
Do you know how much RAM does the XBOX 360 or the PS3 have?
Apparently some people care more about specs than functionality.
It's a marketing ploy and people that look at specs will think they are getting something more.
Same as Video cards with 2GB of VRAM vs 1GB of VRAM, there is no performance difference. Just because memory is cheap, it doesnt mean that we need to put 2Gigs of it in the iPad. It adds weight and it decreases battery life.
Apple engineers know this and they optimize the usage of RAM.
Video formats supported: H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format
Interestingly, unofficially H.264 High Profile is supported up to 720p ... it has been verified in video encoding forums. But definitely no 1080p as yet.
Buy a fuckin' Xoon and quit bitching...
Uh, they trumpet the new "dual core 1GHz" A5 chip on the front page of the iPad site, and list basically all of the tech specs under "Tech Specs", except RAM - probably because it's the one area from a hardware standpoint that another device (ie Xoom) clearly outdoes it. Plus the fact that Xoom can both play and output 1080p content while the iPad can digitally output 1080p but can only actually play 720p (cleverly presented by Apple, i must say).
What 1080p content are you going to play? no streaming services do 1080p. the on board cameras can do 720p at best. Cloners are big on the spec sheet game...that is the only thing they can compete on, meaningless spec sheets.
If that is the case then why is performance better on the iPhone 4 than the original iPad when they have the same CPU but double the ram on the former? And if ram size is really moot then why did they spend the money to go from 256 to 512?
Is it? One reason why the iPhone 4 has double, voice and data. Keep in mind that the iPod Touch 4G has only 256MB as well and it came out after the iPhone 4. The iPhone is a phone first and foremost and it has to reserve a percentage of that memory for that function along with SMS/MMS messaging.
My 3GS with it's 256MB has at most 131MB free with nothing running.
You really don't know what you are talking about. You can not tune the need for RAM away. Beyond that many apps can't even be implemented on iPad 1 due to the lack of RAM.
Implemented how? Last time I checked, the iPad can run anything the iPhone 4 can unless it requires a special feature like the gyroscope. There is not a single App that requires the iPhone 4's 512MB of RAM.
It's sad when the trolls don't know enough about the OS to post even entertaining trolly comments
Exactly. It amazes me how they claim that 512MB is not enough while non of then wrote a single line of code for iOS.
Designed to intentionally reload the same page instead of just caching it and bringing it up instantly? Why would you design something to be slower and use more bandwidth.
I don't think it is a RAM issue. I did notice that some web pages don't reload when I go back to them.
Yes, it is. And this is probably the most prominent area where you will notice the effect of insufficient RAM (insufficient for what you want to do at that moment, which is holding multiple web pages in RAM).
IPad 1 has less free RAM for apps that the 3Gs. It is a very significant problem if your needs are more demanding than cruising to Drudgereport.
But I am hard pressed to offer any other app where you notice this effect. Note that basically all apps are designed with the RAM limitation in mind, thus they are designed to operate well with the existing RAM amount.
For the most part this is true. The important thing that people need to realize though is that that means some apps can't be designed for iPad 1. I expect to see a whole new round of iPad apps in a few months for apps that run on iPad 2 only.
Design constraints also mean that some iPad one apps aren't really what their developers envisioned. The simple act of trying to cram an app into to little memory slows it down and leads to less than clean implementations.
Web pages however are usually not designed with the RAM limitations of the iPad in mind, for sure some are, but most are not.
Yes exactly! If a web page has the iPad in mind or is suitably simple, Safari on iPad one works great. However if that page downloads globs of code and data you will have problems.
Beyond that you can have problems with other apps too. Generally it revolves around files that are no problem on a PC but suffer in an iPad app.
In any event thanks for speaking up. It is sad so many defend iPad for an obvious fault.
I hope its 1GB and not 512MB, it would be more than enough for today but might lead to quick obsolescence, look at the iPhone 3G running iOS 4.
OF COURSE! So next year you will upgrade to iPad 3 with 1GB of RAM :-)
Seriously, though, doubling the RAM *far* more than doubles the amount of memory available for use applications. Keep in mind that iOS uses up a huge chunk of the current 256MB RAM. iOS 4.3 is *not* going to use up twice as much memory as 4.2. This means that most of the available free RAM will be available to applications. They may see 3-4 times as much free RAM as before. Big win.
Video formats supported: H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format
When connected to a 1080p tv, the Xoom will "actually play" 1080p video. Conversely, while the iPad2 can technically output 1080p, it can only actually play 720p video, even when connected to a 1080p TV.
That's not entirely accurate. While iOS only natively handles files up to 720p. Anyone could in fact write an app to play 1080p video, which in turn means it will "actually play" 1080p video. The graphics support is there.
It's like saying my iPhone or iPad cannot play AVI, DivX or Ogg video files just because it's not supported natively by the OS... I can download MANY different apps to play these types of video files and I'm sure these same apps will allow anyone to play 1080p video as well.
Apple is not trying to be "clever" when they say the video out supports 1080p.
OF COURSE! So next year you will upgrade to iPad 3 with 1GB of RAM :-)
No, he will upgrade to which ever Tablet has the best spec sheet - I'm guessing it will be one of the plastic, crappy Archos Tablets.
Do you know how much RAM does the XBOX 360 or the PS3 have?
Actually, the biggest problem with the PS3 is its lack of video RAM. Porting games to it is a real pain in the ass.
Despite its Cell processor and Blu-Ray drive, the PS3 has often struggles to match the apparently "out-dated" Xbox 360 in terms of graphics. Blu-Ray is capable of holding huge textures but the PS3 can't take advantage. You can have all of the processing power in the world but it's wasted if it's not matched by an equally high amount of RAM.