Dual core SGX543 dramatically boosts iPad 2 graphics
The multiple core SGX graphics built into the iPad 2 A5 System on a Chip processor deliver benchmarks from 3 to 7 times faster than the original iPad, and smoke competing mobile chips such as Nvidia's Tegra 2.
According to a report by AnandTech, the new A5's SGX543 "shader pipeline can execute twice the number of instructions per clock as the SGX 535 [in A4], and then there are four times as many pipes in an SGX 543MP2 as there are in a 535.
"There are also efficiency improvements as well. Hidden surface removal works at twice the rate in the 543MP2 as it did in the 535. There's also a big boost in texture filtering performance."
In synthetic benchmarks that draw textured and fragment lit triangles and fetch textures, iPad 2 delivered results 3 to 5 times faster than last years' iPad a from 2 to nearly 7 times faster than Motorola's new Xoom.
In GLBenchmark 2.0 tests that more closely match the tasks of a real 3D game, iPad 2 outperformed last year's iPad by 5.4x, and was 3.7x the performance of the Tegra 2 powered Xoom.
Turning on anti-aliasing to smooth play black, the iPad 2's performance lead reached 7x. Apple claimed a boost in graphics performance by as much as 9x, but the report states "I'm not sure that you'll ever see 9x running real game code."
Epic's Infinity Blade game is already taking advantage of the new graphics processing power to enhance its gameplay on the iPad 2 using higher resolution textures and anti-aliasing for more detailed, smoother graphics.
Apple has been working with Imagination Technologies to build ever faster mobile chips that pair ARM GPU cores with Imaginations' SGX graphics processor cores, part of a secret licensing deal that AppleInsider repeatedly broke news of since 2008.
The same SGX543 graphics processor cores that AppleInsider was first to report being incorporated in the A5 will also be used in the upcoming iPhone 5, as it too will also use the same A5 chip at iPod 2.
Apple's new A5 pairs dual ARM Cortex A9 cores clocked at 1GHz, which dynamically scales down in speed to save battery life.
According to a report by AnandTech, the new A5's SGX543 "shader pipeline can execute twice the number of instructions per clock as the SGX 535 [in A4], and then there are four times as many pipes in an SGX 543MP2 as there are in a 535.
"There are also efficiency improvements as well. Hidden surface removal works at twice the rate in the 543MP2 as it did in the 535. There's also a big boost in texture filtering performance."
In synthetic benchmarks that draw textured and fragment lit triangles and fetch textures, iPad 2 delivered results 3 to 5 times faster than last years' iPad a from 2 to nearly 7 times faster than Motorola's new Xoom.
In GLBenchmark 2.0 tests that more closely match the tasks of a real 3D game, iPad 2 outperformed last year's iPad by 5.4x, and was 3.7x the performance of the Tegra 2 powered Xoom.
Turning on anti-aliasing to smooth play black, the iPad 2's performance lead reached 7x. Apple claimed a boost in graphics performance by as much as 9x, but the report states "I'm not sure that you'll ever see 9x running real game code."
Epic's Infinity Blade game is already taking advantage of the new graphics processing power to enhance its gameplay on the iPad 2 using higher resolution textures and anti-aliasing for more detailed, smoother graphics.
Apple has been working with Imagination Technologies to build ever faster mobile chips that pair ARM GPU cores with Imaginations' SGX graphics processor cores, part of a secret licensing deal that AppleInsider repeatedly broke news of since 2008.
The same SGX543 graphics processor cores that AppleInsider was first to report being incorporated in the A5 will also be used in the upcoming iPhone 5, as it too will also use the same A5 chip at iPod 2.
Apple's new A5 pairs dual ARM Cortex A9 cores clocked at 1GHz, which dynamically scales down in speed to save battery life.
Comments
Shhhhh... don't tell him Anand likes WP7 over iOS!
Don't get me wrong... I've checked out the Xoom, briefly, twice... I'm not impressed. I am just discussing pure graphics performance and unless the two units were running at the some resolution it is not really a fair comparison.
While I think the iPad 2 is still faster (and better in most ways) the Motorola Xoom, it must be mentioned that the iPad is running at a lower resolution then the Xoom. The Xoom is dealing with 1,024,000 pixels at a time and the iPad is dealing with 786,432 pixels. That is quite a difference.
Don't get me wrong... I've checked out the Xoom, briefly, twice... I'm not impressed. I am just discussing pure graphics performance and unless the two units were running at the some resolution it is not really a fair comparison.
You're right, it isn't fair, the iPad should be compared to a netbook or something along those lines.
While I think the iPad 2 is still faster (and better in most ways) the Motorola Xoom, it must be mentioned that the iPad is running at a lower resolution then the Xoom. The Xoom is dealing with 1,024,000 pixels at a time and the iPad is dealing with 786,432 pixels. That is quite a difference.
Don't get me wrong... I've checked out the Xoom, briefly, twice... I'm not impressed. I am just discussing pure graphics performance and unless the two units were running at the some resolution it is not really a fair comparison.
The best ratio the Xoom gets in comparison to iPad 2 is in triangles-per-second, which has nothing to do with resolution. Among those, only GLBenchmark could potentially have a pixel-count dependency, but due to many other factors (such as triangles per second and texturing, etc) it's not going to be nearly in the ratio of pixels.
The moment I played Infiniti blade I noticed a huge difference in the graphics. I'd even go as far to call it "Infiniti Blade HD2" cause of the difference over the iPad 1.
While I think the iPad 2 is still faster (and better in most ways) the Motorola Xoom, it must be mentioned that the iPad is running at a lower resolution then the Xoom. The Xoom is dealing with 1,024,000 pixels at a time and the iPad is dealing with 786,432 pixels. That is quite a difference.
Don't get me wrong... I've checked out the Xoom, briefly, twice... I'm not impressed. I am just discussing pure graphics performance and unless the two units were running at the some resolution it is not really a fair comparison.
Who cares, other than geeks. That was Motorola's tradeoff to make.
It is a fair comparison from the p.o.v. of the user of one versus the other, in the real world. Not in your hypothetical world of 'what would it be like if Apple had higher pixel density and Motorola had lower.'
At the end of the day, that's pretty much all that matters. In any event, the users seem to have spoken in volumes.....
That is quite a difference.
It's also worth noting that the xoom screen looks like crap compared to the ipad screen. So why even bother with a slightly higher resolution if it's worse than another screen which is lower?
Now there's a great ad slogan.....
I'm surprised people even care to compare iPad 2 with the Xoom. Besides those fancy ads, the Xoom has shown nothing, there's no lines during release, there's only mediocre reviews, and there's only 100 apps specifically made for it so far. To me it's not even worth a comparison.
Like someone else said, Motorola wants you to send the Xoom back in three months so they can finish building it
The performance and graphics are amazing. I have some of the new games that were updated for the iPad 2 and you can really notice the graphics difference between the iPad and iPad 2.
Like someone else said, Motorola wants you to send the Xoom back in three months so they can finish building it
I was looking at the new games for the iPad 2 today and I noticed the comment section and there were alot of people pissed because they loaded the game for the iPad 1 and it really couldn't run the game. They wanted there money back...LOL.
Real Racing 2 HD appears to be a bit too much for the first iPad. Dead Space plays really nice on my iPad 2.
I was looking at the new games for the iPad 2 today and I noticed the comment section and there were alot of people pissed because they loaded the game for the iPad 1 and it really couldn't run the game. They wanted there money back...LOL.
Real Racing 2 HD appears to be a bit too much for the first iPad. Dead Space plays really nice on my iPad 2.
The updated Infinity Blade game worked fine on my iPad 1 and the same version worked beautifully on my iPad 2. I think those developers will improve both devices support now that they have the iPad 2 in hand.
The updated Infinity Blade game worked fine on my iPad 1 and the same version worked beautifully on my iPad 2. I think those developers will improve both devices support now that they have the iPad 2 in hand.
How your battery life? So far I think its about the same as the first iPad.
Like someone else said, Motorola wants you to send the Xoom back in three months so they can finish building it
LOL I wonder how long that will take and if you have to pay for shipping there and back.
How your battery life? So far I think its about the same as the first iPad.
The reviews show it’s about the same, though most I’ve read have it lasting slightly more than before.
I look forward to AnandTech’s battery review and comparison of the iPad 2. They’ve apparently had 4 units in testing since yesterday so hopefully we’ll see an article tomorrow.
PS: Install Xcode, enable Dev Mode and get Four-Finger Gestures enabled on your iPad 1 or 2 running iOS 4.3. Completely changes the experience for the better.
How your battery life? So far I think its about the same as the first iPad.
Yes. A little bit better since it is new. After the official 4.3 update my battery life went back to normal. On the beta it used to get drained much faster since it was a beta OS.
While I think the iPad 2 is still faster (and better in most ways) the Motorola Xoom, it must be mentioned that the iPad is running at a lower resolution then the Xoom. The Xoom is dealing with 1,024,000 pixels at a time and the iPad is dealing with 786,432 pixels. That is quite a difference.
Don't get me wrong... I've checked out the Xoom, briefly, twice... I'm not impressed. I am just discussing pure graphics performance and unless the two units were running at the some resolution it is not really a fair comparison.
That's 23% less pixels for the iPad - but its performance is 115% better (in the frame rate test). The resolution difference doesn't explain the performance difference.
Oh, yeah I remember... FLASH!!!
(People who want Android tablet should hold off until the later part of this year)
Its hilarious now looking back at the haters who were convinced that xoom's tegra chip performance alone would kill the ipad 1 and 2. I find they are increasingly running on delusional wishful thinking than substantial facts.
So what will be the argument now? Before it was because of all the better ?HW? and how Honeycomb was designed for a tablet when all Apple did for iOS for iPad was nothing at all (as noted by making it was similar to iOS for iPhone/Touch as they could for obvious reasons).
We already know one one argument, which is ?it has 23% more pixels? but I assume we?ll also see some excuses about how Honeycomb is so new and how the Xoom is just the first Android tablets, which I presume means all the others will be this fabled ?iPad killer? that is always talked about but never seems to come to pass.