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.
It's only 25% more pixels. Check out the numbers of the tests. Usually, it's well over 100% faster, sometimes 300% or more.
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'd like to see that because all the games I've seen so far use less demanding graphics when running on the iPad 1. That includes RR 2 HD, which has no problem on my iPad 1, but looks great on my iPad 2. That is, now, my wife's iPad 1.
The iPad 2 resolves every issue I had with the iPad 1. Love the aptly named Smart Cover, though it should be noted the iPad 2 was designed in tandem with the Smart Cover and it’s not as simple as putting a couple magnets in the cover. Bought the nav blue leather cover and completely worth the $69.
The thing I wish they did with the cover was to have magnets hold it against the back when folded over. It's annoying having it flap back and forth. And, like the old case, it leaves smudge lines on the screen.
Quote:
LOL I wonder how long that will take and if you have to pay for shipping there and back.
6 working days. You pay the fare there, and they pay it back, unless that's changed.
Hey! I though you were going to exercise some restraint while school season was still on.
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.
It's a very fair comparison because one cannot change native display resolutions on tablets. With computers, you can arbitrarily change resolutions, monitor sizes, etc., so a head-to-head comparison at the same resolution would be a better comparison.
Each manufacturer has to weigh the benefits of screen size, resolution, CPU and GPU performance, battery life, etc.
Motorola chose poorly.
But in the end, benchmarks are rather stupid since they don't duplicate real world usage.
If benchmarks and raw performance were so important, why aren't Windows PC users happier than Mac users? The customer satisfaction surveys always have Mac users at the top. And remember, something like half of the Macs being sold in Apple's retail stores are going to first-time Mac buyers. That is, a lot of these happier Mac users are former Windows PC owners.
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.
Apple has too many advantages here. Like Samsung, Nvidia and others, they license the basic chip designs and mod them. But other tablet manufacturers must then buy one of those off the shelf chips for their products. They do have a good choice, as there are several manufacturers making different but pretty good chips.
But Apple can mod the chip to work better with iOS, and it can modify iOS to work better with their chip. Other manufacturers can't do that because they get the OS as is, though they may be able to add their own UI overlay.
This advantage can not only be shown by the speed tests Anand did so far, but if what they found is true, the CPU is only running at 895 MHz, not 1 GHz. That makes the Xoom running at 1GHz an even worse performer relative to the iPad 2. And that makes the iPad2 and it's hardware and software even more impressive.
Not to sound like an android fan, using iPad to write this btw, but I hope android stays around a little longer. My reasoning is if there is no competition then the innovation my start to lag. Point in case the iPod touch, other than the back cover and some cameras (which it could have had from the start) and new sceen, there are no real innovations. Don't get me wrong the retina screen is nice, but that tech isn't from apple. So I don't want apple slipping into that lethargical mode with the iPad. Just my two cents and I know not all will agree.
What great innovations would you like to see in the iPod Touch? I happen to think that it's a perfectly evolved product.
To suggest that Apple would somehow stop innovating because there is no competition belies everything about the company's history.
Now will people start believing me when I've been saying all along that we are just one or two generations away from the iPad1 being a PS3 killer? I also did mention repeatedly a dual core ARM at 1ghz being essential for this, though of course I mentioned graphics equivalent to what I know from the PC side ie. an equivalent of an AMD 6000 class GPU.
More relevant, clearly iPad 2 was going to have a Retina Display but they were probably not going to be able to make enough of the screens, Steve was not at his best of health, and the iPad 2 is so far ahead of the competition anyway. iPad 3 = Retina Bring It ON.
Finally, I think game makers are going to be making some interesting, very near console-quality titles with these graphics.
The iPad 3 will definitely run what we consider PS3 and Xbox360 AAA "hardcore gamer" titles. There is very little reason for Apple NOT to release a gaming console with the A6.
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...
The Xoom and iPad2 comparison is the only true comparison so far. All the others that have been made have just been from paper specs, which are useless from a performance point. It's also the only tablet that can be fairly compared. Smaller models aren't really competing directly.
If the retina display comes our, and I doubt we'll see it this year, will require new hardware, and newer drivers. With 4 times the pixels, it will require a gpu 4 times faster in order to keep up with the current model. Then, it will need a new CPU, because many apps are CPU bound, even for their graphics performance. We see this when games and graphics cards are tested.
In addition, a number of graphics functions on the iPad2 are only twice as fast, meaning a 4 times as dense display would actually be slower sometimes. This is why, despite what a few people seem to think, a high Rez display can't simply be dropped in. If Apple was able to get those displays cheaply now, and was assured production, possibly, they could have done it, because performance would have been measured against the old, slower model. But not any more.
No, I mean 25 FPS, because I was just quoting what some super genius wrote on that forum.
As for what I believe the best frame rate to be, the answer is obviously, the higher, the better!
For gaming, I don't mind 100 FPS and above. Try it out for yourself (if you have a hefty graphics card), and you'll see that there's a huge difference.
In most of the EU, the movie rate is 25FPS because of the line frequency, which is 50 Hz. Their Tv has a frame rate of 50FPs because of that.
30FPs is usually considered to be the slowest rate that a game is playable.
But movies, that is film, is doubled. That 24FPs is actually running at 48FPS. What is done is they double every frame, and run it twice. That way, the frame rate is really 48FPS, but with only 24 different frames per second. If you have 24 frames per second, it will look jumpy.
I'd like to see that because all the games I've seen so far use less demanding graphics when running on the iPad 1. That includes RR 2 HD, which has no problem on my iPad 1, but looks great on my iPad 2. That is, now, my wife's iPad 1.
I think we're only just scratching the surface with the iPad 2 graphics. We're going to see some very interesting stuff in the next 8 months.
If the retina display comes our, and I doubt we'll see it this year, will require new hardware, and newer drivers. With 4 times the pixels, it will require a gpu 4 times faster in order to keep up with the current model. Then, it will need a new CPU, because many apps are CPU bound, even for their graphics performance. We see this when games and graphics cards are tested.
In addition, a number of graphics functions on the iPad2 are only twice as fast, meaning a 4 times as dense display would actually be slower sometimes. This is why, despite what a few people seem to think, a high Rez display can't simply be dropped in. If Apple was able to get those displays cheaply now, and was assured production, possibly, they could have done it, because performance would have been measured against the old, slower model. But not any more.
Thanks! This is exactly what I was wondering. I thought there was a chance with all this talk of graphics firepower that it might indicate that Apple had a roadmap for a drop-in retina display update on the iPad2.
Clearly, if that would put the iPad2HR behind the original iPad in some graphics functions than it will not happen!
Edit: I re-read this and I think it makes me look naive for hoping for a HR update. In my defense, Apple was throwing around 9X graphics performance increases. In my mind, that sounded a little like overkill unless they had some plan for using that capability...
If the retina display comes our, and I doubt we'll see it this year, will require new hardware, and newer drivers. With 4 times the pixels, it will require a gpu 4 times faster in order to keep up with the current model. Then, it will need a new CPU, because many apps are CPU bound, even for their graphics performance. We see this when games and graphics cards are tested.
In addition, a number of graphics functions on the iPad2 are only twice as fast, meaning a 4 times as dense display would actually be slower sometimes. This is why, despite what a few people seem to think, a high Rez display can't simply be dropped in. If Apple was able to get those displays cheaply now, and was assured production, possibly, they could have done it, because performance would have been measured against the old, slower model. But not any more.
For just rendering the iOS UI and 2D graphics, the iPad 2 would already handle a retina resolution right now. For games, it could have a 2x mode that looks just like the current iPad screens. Games benefit more from smoother frame rates and better textures and models anyway, than they do from higher pixel densities, and 1024x768 on a 10" screen is comparable to typical PC gaming pixel densities.
For the browsing experience and text rendering alone a retina screen would already make sense, and technically that's already possible.
Comparing a 1024 x 768 resolution benchmark with a 1280 x 800 resolution benchmark.
This is like saying "wow! my graphics card runs 120FPS at 640x480 but yours runs it at 34 at 1440x900! My card is superior!"
You will see similar performance from this new chip to the Xoom when the resolution of the iPad 2 is bumped up to 1280 x 800.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Now will people start believing me when I've been saying all along that we are just one or two generations away from the iPad1 being a PS3 killer? I also did mention repeatedly a dual core ARM at 1ghz being essential for this, though of course I mentioned graphics equivalent to what I know from the PC side ie. an equivalent of an AMD 6000 class GPU.
More relevant, clearly iPad 2 was going to have a Retina Display but they were probably not going to be able to make enough of the screens, Steve was not at his best of health, and the iPad 2 is so far ahead of the competition anyway. iPad 3 = Retina Bring It ON.
Finally, I think game makers are going to be making some interesting, very near console-quality titles with these graphics.
The iPad 3 will definitely run what we consider PS3 and Xbox360 AAA "hardcore gamer" titles. There is very little reason for Apple NOT to release a gaming console with the A6.
In order to get similar or faster performance compared to this new chip, the newer chip inside the iPad 3 will need at least 4 times the graphics power of the current one just to keep up with benchmark scores of the current iPad 2. Therefore, increasing resolution only degrades benchmark scores.
Perhaps, Apple maintained the same resolution of the display scree for this purpose: to show people how much of a performance boost they get.
Not to sound like an android fan, using iPad to write this btw, but I hope android stays around a little longer. My reasoning is if there is no competition then the innovation my start to lag. Point in case the iPod touch, other than the back cover and some cameras (which it could have had from the start) and new sceen, there are no real innovations. Don't get me wrong the retina screen is nice, but that tech isn't from apple. So I don't want apple slipping into that lethargical mode with the iPad. Just my two cents and I know not all will agree.
Apple is the competition.
And as long as it continues to beat itself, it will continue to lead. As they, i.e. Apple has done for so long now.
Your contention that Apple could have had cameras in the iPod Touch right from the start is ludicrous. Could you list the lenses that could fit into it at the time and at the cost that wouldn't raise the price? Was there an mp3 video player/camera that matched in every aspect the first iPod touch. Heck, is there one now?
Keep in mind that 'invention' and 'innovation' have different meanings. Some of the greatest innovators never invented anything. It appears that Apple, i.e., Jobs, innovates first and out of his innovations, comes inventions.
FYI
To become the market leader you must be the`Competition`
I think we're only just scratching the surface with the iPad 2 graphics. We're going to see some very interesting stuff in the next 8 months.
Big question: Do we need OpenGL3 in iPad 3?
Seeing that the iPad 1 and 2 use OpenGL ES 2 and not full-blown OpenGL, and there is no such thing as OpenGL ES 3, I'd say no, iPad 3 doesn't need OpenGL 3.
GPU hardware is all fully programmable right now, and every GPU vendor can expose specific fixed-function capabilities through extensions, so sticking with OpenGL ES 2 will not limit iPad graphics at all I think.
Comparing a 1024 x 768 resolution benchmark with a 1280 x 800 resolution benchmark.
This is like saying "wow! my graphics card runs 120FPS at 640x480 but yours runs it at 34 at 1440x900! My card is superior!"
You will see similar performance from this new chip to the Xoom when the resolution of the iPad 2 is bumped up to 1280 x 800.
Yeah right... 30% more pixels == 4 times lower graphics performance... Also, triangle throughput is independent from resolution...
But keepin hanging on to every last bit of justification for your own assertion that the Xoom and Tegra 2 are really as great as all the Motorola and NVidia PR has lead you to believe.
The CPU part in the Xoom is on par with the iPad 2 and other comparable chips. The GPU part is actually a lot less sophisticated which it tries to make up for by throwing more brute force behind it. But the real difference in GPU performance as you see it here is probably software-related, I think the way Android works with it's Java-based frameworks is simply hurting performance of things like graphics.
Yeah right... 30% more pixels == 4 times lower graphics performance... Also, triangle throughput is independent from resolution...
But keepin hanging on to every last bit of justification for your own assertion that the Xoom and Tegra 2 are really as great as all the Motorola and NVidia PR has lead you to believe.
The CPU part in the Xoom is on par with the iPad 2 and other comparable chips. The GPU part is actually a lot less sophisticated which it tries to make up for by throwing more brute force behind it. But the real difference in GPU performance as you see it here is probably software-related, I think the way Android works with it's Java-based frameworks is simply hurting performance of things like graphics.
Let me add to that that from the user perspective it doesn't matter why or how their frame rates are shitty if they are. If Tegra 2 can't drive 1280x800 at decent frame rates in games, while it would magically be so much faster with 30% less pixels, then Motorola screwed up when they picked their GPU-screen combo.
Anyway, it doesn't matter that much anyway, as these benchmarks clearly show Tegra 2 really is not the mobile powerhouse that NVidia has always marketed it as, and that NVidia still has years of catching up to Imagination Technologies when it comes to mobile graphics. A good desktop-grade GPU maker does not imply a good mobile GPU maker.
I think we're only just scratching the surface with the iPad 2 graphics. We're going to see some very interesting stuff in the next 8 months.
Big question: Do we need OpenGL3 in iPad 3?
Honestly, I'm beginning to get confused over all the standards and compatibility questions.
Supposedly, OpenGL 3 is OpenCL compatible. Plus, it adds a number of efficiencies that 2 doesn't have, in addition to having more abilities. We can always use newer standards developers will take advantage of.
I remember reviewers saying that the IBM PC with a 286 could do all that businesses required. Later, it was said that a 1HGz Pentium was as fast as would be needed. There are a lot more statements like that. Software follows hardware. When the hardware can work the math quickly enough, we'll see the software be upgraded. So we should see OpenGL 3 at some point. Do we want it? Sure we do!
Comments
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.
It's only 25% more pixels. Check out the numbers of the tests. Usually, it's well over 100% faster, sometimes 300% or more.
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'd like to see that because all the games I've seen so far use less demanding graphics when running on the iPad 1. That includes RR 2 HD, which has no problem on my iPad 1, but looks great on my iPad 2. That is, now, my wife's iPad 1.
The iPad 2 resolves every issue I had with the iPad 1. Love the aptly named Smart Cover, though it should be noted the iPad 2 was designed in tandem with the Smart Cover and it’s not as simple as putting a couple magnets in the cover. Bought the nav blue leather cover and completely worth the $69.
The thing I wish they did with the cover was to have magnets hold it against the back when folded over. It's annoying having it flap back and forth. And, like the old case, it leaves smudge lines on the screen.
LOL I wonder how long that will take and if you have to pay for shipping there and back.
6 working days. You pay the fare there, and they pay it back, unless that's changed.
Hey! I though you were going to exercise some restraint while school season was still on.
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.
It's a very fair comparison because one cannot change native display resolutions on tablets. With computers, you can arbitrarily change resolutions, monitor sizes, etc., so a head-to-head comparison at the same resolution would be a better comparison.
Each manufacturer has to weigh the benefits of screen size, resolution, CPU and GPU performance, battery life, etc.
Motorola chose poorly.
But in the end, benchmarks are rather stupid since they don't duplicate real world usage.
If benchmarks and raw performance were so important, why aren't Windows PC users happier than Mac users? The customer satisfaction surveys always have Mac users at the top. And remember, something like half of the Macs being sold in Apple's retail stores are going to first-time Mac buyers. That is, a lot of these happier Mac users are former Windows PC owners.
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.
Apple has too many advantages here. Like Samsung, Nvidia and others, they license the basic chip designs and mod them. But other tablet manufacturers must then buy one of those off the shelf chips for their products. They do have a good choice, as there are several manufacturers making different but pretty good chips.
But Apple can mod the chip to work better with iOS, and it can modify iOS to work better with their chip. Other manufacturers can't do that because they get the OS as is, though they may be able to add their own UI overlay.
This advantage can not only be shown by the speed tests Anand did so far, but if what they found is true, the CPU is only running at 895 MHz, not 1 GHz. That makes the Xoom running at 1GHz an even worse performer relative to the iPad 2. And that makes the iPad2 and it's hardware and software even more impressive.
Not to sound like an android fan, using iPad to write this btw, but I hope android stays around a little longer. My reasoning is if there is no competition then the innovation my start to lag. Point in case the iPod touch, other than the back cover and some cameras (which it could have had from the start) and new sceen, there are no real innovations. Don't get me wrong the retina screen is nice, but that tech isn't from apple. So I don't want apple slipping into that lethargical mode with the iPad. Just my two cents and I know not all will agree.
What great innovations would you like to see in the iPod Touch? I happen to think that it's a perfectly evolved product.
To suggest that Apple would somehow stop innovating because there is no competition belies everything about the company's history.
Costs more, runs slower.
Now there's a great ad slogan.....
I'll add to that:
Costs more, runs slower, almost no apps.
More relevant, clearly iPad 2 was going to have a Retina Display but they were probably not going to be able to make enough of the screens, Steve was not at his best of health, and the iPad 2 is so far ahead of the competition anyway. iPad 3 = Retina Bring It ON.
Finally, I think game makers are going to be making some interesting, very near console-quality titles with these graphics.
The iPad 3 will definitely run what we consider PS3 and Xbox360 AAA "hardcore gamer" titles. There is very little reason for Apple NOT to release a gaming console with the A6.
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...
The Xoom and iPad2 comparison is the only true comparison so far. All the others that have been made have just been from paper specs, which are useless from a performance point. It's also the only tablet that can be fairly compared. Smaller models aren't really competing directly.
If the retina display comes our, and I doubt we'll see it this year, will require new hardware, and newer drivers. With 4 times the pixels, it will require a gpu 4 times faster in order to keep up with the current model. Then, it will need a new CPU, because many apps are CPU bound, even for their graphics performance. We see this when games and graphics cards are tested.
In addition, a number of graphics functions on the iPad2 are only twice as fast, meaning a 4 times as dense display would actually be slower sometimes. This is why, despite what a few people seem to think, a high Rez display can't simply be dropped in. If Apple was able to get those displays cheaply now, and was assured production, possibly, they could have done it, because performance would have been measured against the old, slower model. But not any more.
No, I mean 25 FPS, because I was just quoting what some super genius wrote on that forum.
As for what I believe the best frame rate to be, the answer is obviously, the higher, the better!
For gaming, I don't mind 100 FPS and above. Try it out for yourself (if you have a hefty graphics card), and you'll see that there's a huge difference.
In most of the EU, the movie rate is 25FPS because of the line frequency, which is 50 Hz. Their Tv has a frame rate of 50FPs because of that.
30FPs is usually considered to be the slowest rate that a game is playable.
But movies, that is film, is doubled. That 24FPs is actually running at 48FPS. What is done is they double every frame, and run it twice. That way, the frame rate is really 48FPS, but with only 24 different frames per second. If you have 24 frames per second, it will look jumpy.
I'd like to see that because all the games I've seen so far use less demanding graphics when running on the iPad 1. That includes RR 2 HD, which has no problem on my iPad 1, but looks great on my iPad 2. That is, now, my wife's iPad 1.
I think we're only just scratching the surface with the iPad 2 graphics. We're going to see some very interesting stuff in the next 8 months.
Big question: Do we need OpenGL3 in iPad 3?
I'll add to that:
Costs more, runs slower, almost no apps.
Why stop there?
Costs more, weighs more, runs slower, almost no apps...
After a while, it starts to feel mean...
If the retina display comes our, and I doubt we'll see it this year, will require new hardware, and newer drivers. With 4 times the pixels, it will require a gpu 4 times faster in order to keep up with the current model. Then, it will need a new CPU, because many apps are CPU bound, even for their graphics performance. We see this when games and graphics cards are tested.
In addition, a number of graphics functions on the iPad2 are only twice as fast, meaning a 4 times as dense display would actually be slower sometimes. This is why, despite what a few people seem to think, a high Rez display can't simply be dropped in. If Apple was able to get those displays cheaply now, and was assured production, possibly, they could have done it, because performance would have been measured against the old, slower model. But not any more.
Thanks! This is exactly what I was wondering. I thought there was a chance with all this talk of graphics firepower that it might indicate that Apple had a roadmap for a drop-in retina display update on the iPad2.
Clearly, if that would put the iPad2HR behind the original iPad in some graphics functions than it will not happen!
Edit: I re-read this and I think it makes me look naive for hoping for a HR update. In my defense, Apple was throwing around 9X graphics performance increases. In my mind, that sounded a little like overkill unless they had some plan for using that capability...
If the retina display comes our, and I doubt we'll see it this year, will require new hardware, and newer drivers. With 4 times the pixels, it will require a gpu 4 times faster in order to keep up with the current model. Then, it will need a new CPU, because many apps are CPU bound, even for their graphics performance. We see this when games and graphics cards are tested.
In addition, a number of graphics functions on the iPad2 are only twice as fast, meaning a 4 times as dense display would actually be slower sometimes. This is why, despite what a few people seem to think, a high Rez display can't simply be dropped in. If Apple was able to get those displays cheaply now, and was assured production, possibly, they could have done it, because performance would have been measured against the old, slower model. But not any more.
For just rendering the iOS UI and 2D graphics, the iPad 2 would already handle a retina resolution right now. For games, it could have a 2x mode that looks just like the current iPad screens. Games benefit more from smoother frame rates and better textures and models anyway, than they do from higher pixel densities, and 1024x768 on a 10" screen is comparable to typical PC gaming pixel densities.
For the browsing experience and text rendering alone a retina screen would already make sense, and technically that's already possible.
This is like saying "wow! my graphics card runs 120FPS at 640x480 but yours runs it at 34 at 1440x900! My card is superior!"
You will see similar performance from this new chip to the Xoom when the resolution of the iPad 2 is bumped up to 1280 x 800.
Now will people start believing me when I've been saying all along that we are just one or two generations away from the iPad1 being a PS3 killer? I also did mention repeatedly a dual core ARM at 1ghz being essential for this, though of course I mentioned graphics equivalent to what I know from the PC side ie. an equivalent of an AMD 6000 class GPU.
More relevant, clearly iPad 2 was going to have a Retina Display but they were probably not going to be able to make enough of the screens, Steve was not at his best of health, and the iPad 2 is so far ahead of the competition anyway. iPad 3 = Retina Bring It ON.
Finally, I think game makers are going to be making some interesting, very near console-quality titles with these graphics.
The iPad 3 will definitely run what we consider PS3 and Xbox360 AAA "hardcore gamer" titles. There is very little reason for Apple NOT to release a gaming console with the A6.
In order to get similar or faster performance compared to this new chip, the newer chip inside the iPad 3 will need at least 4 times the graphics power of the current one just to keep up with benchmark scores of the current iPad 2. Therefore, increasing resolution only degrades benchmark scores.
Perhaps, Apple maintained the same resolution of the display scree for this purpose: to show people how much of a performance boost they get.
Not to sound like an android fan, using iPad to write this btw, but I hope android stays around a little longer. My reasoning is if there is no competition then the innovation my start to lag. Point in case the iPod touch, other than the back cover and some cameras (which it could have had from the start) and new sceen, there are no real innovations. Don't get me wrong the retina screen is nice, but that tech isn't from apple. So I don't want apple slipping into that lethargical mode with the iPad. Just my two cents and I know not all will agree.
Apple is the competition.
And as long as it continues to beat itself, it will continue to lead. As they, i.e. Apple has done for so long now.
Your contention that Apple could have had cameras in the iPod Touch right from the start is ludicrous. Could you list the lenses that could fit into it at the time and at the cost that wouldn't raise the price? Was there an mp3 video player/camera that matched in every aspect the first iPod touch. Heck, is there one now?
Keep in mind that 'invention' and 'innovation' have different meanings. Some of the greatest innovators never invented anything. It appears that Apple, i.e., Jobs, innovates first and out of his innovations, comes inventions.
FYI
To become the market leader you must be the`Competition`
http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=20315
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation
I think we're only just scratching the surface with the iPad 2 graphics. We're going to see some very interesting stuff in the next 8 months.
Big question: Do we need OpenGL3 in iPad 3?
Seeing that the iPad 1 and 2 use OpenGL ES 2 and not full-blown OpenGL, and there is no such thing as OpenGL ES 3, I'd say no, iPad 3 doesn't need OpenGL 3.
GPU hardware is all fully programmable right now, and every GPU vendor can expose specific fixed-function capabilities through extensions, so sticking with OpenGL ES 2 will not limit iPad graphics at all I think.
Comparing a 1024 x 768 resolution benchmark with a 1280 x 800 resolution benchmark.
This is like saying "wow! my graphics card runs 120FPS at 640x480 but yours runs it at 34 at 1440x900! My card is superior!"
You will see similar performance from this new chip to the Xoom when the resolution of the iPad 2 is bumped up to 1280 x 800.
Yeah right... 30% more pixels == 4 times lower graphics performance... Also, triangle throughput is independent from resolution...
But keepin hanging on to every last bit of justification for your own assertion that the Xoom and Tegra 2 are really as great as all the Motorola and NVidia PR has lead you to believe.
The CPU part in the Xoom is on par with the iPad 2 and other comparable chips. The GPU part is actually a lot less sophisticated which it tries to make up for by throwing more brute force behind it. But the real difference in GPU performance as you see it here is probably software-related, I think the way Android works with it's Java-based frameworks is simply hurting performance of things like graphics.
Yeah right... 30% more pixels == 4 times lower graphics performance... Also, triangle throughput is independent from resolution...
But keepin hanging on to every last bit of justification for your own assertion that the Xoom and Tegra 2 are really as great as all the Motorola and NVidia PR has lead you to believe.
The CPU part in the Xoom is on par with the iPad 2 and other comparable chips. The GPU part is actually a lot less sophisticated which it tries to make up for by throwing more brute force behind it. But the real difference in GPU performance as you see it here is probably software-related, I think the way Android works with it's Java-based frameworks is simply hurting performance of things like graphics.
Let me add to that that from the user perspective it doesn't matter why or how their frame rates are shitty if they are. If Tegra 2 can't drive 1280x800 at decent frame rates in games, while it would magically be so much faster with 30% less pixels, then Motorola screwed up when they picked their GPU-screen combo.
Anyway, it doesn't matter that much anyway, as these benchmarks clearly show Tegra 2 really is not the mobile powerhouse that NVidia has always marketed it as, and that NVidia still has years of catching up to Imagination Technologies when it comes to mobile graphics. A good desktop-grade GPU maker does not imply a good mobile GPU maker.
I think we're only just scratching the surface with the iPad 2 graphics. We're going to see some very interesting stuff in the next 8 months.
Big question: Do we need OpenGL3 in iPad 3?
Honestly, I'm beginning to get confused over all the standards and compatibility questions.
Supposedly, OpenGL 3 is OpenCL compatible. Plus, it adds a number of efficiencies that 2 doesn't have, in addition to having more abilities. We can always use newer standards developers will take advantage of.
I remember reviewers saying that the IBM PC with a 286 could do all that businesses required. Later, it was said that a 1HGz Pentium was as fast as would be needed. There are a lot more statements like that. Software follows hardware. When the hardware can work the math quickly enough, we'll see the software be upgraded. So we should see OpenGL 3 at some point. Do we want it? Sure we do!