I must have missed the release of the benchmarks for the iPad Pro. Where are they posted?
I was referring to how well it worked on actual apps, you know stuff people actually do with tablets...
Benchmarks -can- sometimes be useful in cases where performance is difficult to quantify. However, viewing the demos and the many videos of people using with them after the press event it is obvious that they are fast and fluid (the surface, even the i7 version, lags and stalls noticeably (particularly when using large or complex brushes)) And editing 3 streams of 4K video on a tablet? That is just mind-blowing.
And the auto cad demos afterward? Holy crap, initially I though it was a virtual session (using a server farm for the heavy lifting of access and render), my head nearly exploded when I realized it was all local.
And the list goes on, nearly twice the screen, nearly twice the battery life, 1/3 cheaper. You don't need benchmarks to know the surface isn't even playing in the same league.Apple just pulled the plug on surface sales, anyone can deny reality (even proclaim that the sun won't come up tomorrow morning) but reality is still reality, regardless if you claim to see it or not.
@jameskatt2 I would never say never with Apple. If they think it would be better to change a supplier they would. Motorola g4 chip was technically better than intels offerings at the time but Motorola could not keep up with the production demands of Apple so Apple switched. Arm could be faster. It's underclocked to save power in a phone. It would not be hard at all to get it up around 2ghz. It's around 1ghz now. I wouldn't be surprised if they have one in the basement at headquarters. It's mostly the os that makes a computer multitasking or not not the chip. Ios is multitasking in a limited way now by the way. Yes they would have to have a emulator for windows. But that would not prevent a switch, it a small percent of the Apple market that uses windows on their computer regularly. The cpu doesn't do graphics. There is a graphics card in the phone and there would be a much more powerful one on a desktop. Yes I agree Arm is a low power solution for phones. If they wanted to switch desktops to arm the would have a highpower solution that had the same code. It would not probably be a decision Apple made based on consumer use but on Apple business needs. Most people have a computer or device that is many more powerful than what they ever use it for.
What is this low end PC market crap? There is no competing with that. Junk is as Junk does.
The iPad Pro is meant to be the best damn thing Apple can make, at a fairly reasonable price. To have an iPad that big and powerful with such useful accessories...and did I mention it is an iPad?
Motorola g4 chip was technically better than intels offerings at the time but Motorola could not keep up with the production demands of Apple so Apple switched.
It was not production but capability, the g4 was literally a fraction of the power of the pentium chips Apple had egg on it's face performance wise. It tried to further PPC with IBM and the G5 (micro version of IBM's minicomputer class power 4 chip) But IBM was unwilling to further develop the G5 unless Apple footed some of the bill for R&D of new fabs. The G5, once a promising platform stalled. Apple raised the frequency (and voltage) of the first gen G5's (requiring water cooling) to gain performance but that turned to be not such a great plan (it never is) so they did the only thing they could: they made a deal with intel to revive and extend the older pentium pro fabs into a brand new line; the "core" series (which eventually became the i series). rather than the pentium 5's (which jobs felt had gone down the wrong path)
It's mostly the os that makes a computer multitasking or not not the chip. Ios is multitasking in a limited way now by the way.
Yes it's the OS not the chip, but you are incorrect, iOS is BSD based and is a fully multithreaded / preemptive multitasking OS (you should see how much (support tasks) is running in iOS currently) That apple will not (chooses not to) grant (3rd party) applications unlimited backgrounding was (and is) a design choice (and in retrospect a good one)
Yes I agree Arm is a low power solution for phones. If they wanted to switch desktops to arm the would have a highpower solution that had the same code.
It would not probably be a decision Apple made based on consumer use but on Apple business needs. Most people have a computer or device that is many more powerful than what they ever use it for.
Not just for windows, they would need to emulate intel machine code to even run OS X apps (until the 3rd party apps were recompiled into ARM machine code (and we have an example of just how long that takes in the real world based on the PPC-> Intel transition) Interpreting machine code, rather than direct execution, takes a heavy toll on execution (4-5X slower is conservative depending on interpreter efficiency)
Comments
I must have missed the release of the benchmarks for the iPad Pro. Where are they posted?
I was referring to how well it worked on actual apps, you know stuff people actually do with tablets...
Benchmarks -can- sometimes be useful in cases where performance is difficult to quantify. However, viewing the demos and the many videos of people using with them after the press event it is obvious that they are fast and fluid (the surface, even the i7 version, lags and stalls noticeably (particularly when using large or complex brushes)) And editing 3 streams of 4K video on a tablet? That is just mind-blowing.
And the auto cad demos afterward? Holy crap, initially I though it was a virtual session (using a server farm for the heavy lifting of access and render), my head nearly exploded when I realized it was all local.
And the list goes on, nearly twice the screen, nearly twice the battery life, 1/3 cheaper. You don't need benchmarks to know the surface isn't even playing in the same league.Apple just pulled the plug on surface sales, anyone can deny reality (even proclaim that the sun won't come up tomorrow morning) but reality is still reality, regardless if you claim to see it or not.
More the discontinuation of laptops and movement of desktops to multitouch.
I would never say never with Apple. If they think it would be better to change a supplier they would. Motorola g4 chip was technically better than intels offerings at the time but Motorola could not keep up with the production demands of Apple so Apple switched.
Arm could be faster. It's underclocked to save power in a phone. It would not be hard at all to get it up around 2ghz. It's around 1ghz now. I wouldn't be surprised if they have one in the basement at headquarters.
It's mostly the os that makes a computer multitasking or not not the chip. Ios is multitasking in a limited way now by the way.
Yes they would have to have a emulator for windows. But that would not prevent a switch, it a small percent of the Apple market that uses windows on their computer regularly.
The cpu doesn't do graphics. There is a graphics card in the phone and there would be a much more powerful one on a desktop.
Yes I agree Arm is a low power solution for phones. If they wanted to switch desktops to arm the would have a highpower solution that had the same code.
It would not probably be a decision Apple made based on consumer use but on Apple business needs. Most people have a computer or device that is many more powerful than what they ever use it for.
What is this low end PC market crap? There is no competing with that. Junk is as Junk does.
The iPad Pro is meant to be the best damn thing Apple can make, at a fairly reasonable price. To have an iPad that big and powerful with such useful accessories...and did I mention it is an iPad?
Motorola g4 chip was technically better than intels offerings at the time but Motorola could not keep up with the production demands of Apple so Apple switched.
It was not production but capability, the g4 was literally a fraction of the power of the pentium chips Apple had egg on it's face performance wise. It tried to further PPC with IBM and the G5 (micro version of IBM's minicomputer class power 4 chip) But IBM was unwilling to further develop the G5 unless Apple footed some of the bill for R&D of new fabs. The G5, once a promising platform stalled. Apple raised the frequency (and voltage) of the first gen G5's (requiring water cooling) to gain performance but that turned to be not such a great plan (it never is) so they did the only thing they could: they made a deal with intel to revive and extend the older pentium pro fabs into a brand new line; the "core" series (which eventually became the i series). rather than the pentium 5's (which jobs felt had gone down the wrong path)
Yes it's the OS not the chip, but you are incorrect, iOS is BSD based and is a fully multithreaded / preemptive multitasking OS (you should see how much (support tasks) is running in iOS currently) That apple will not (chooses not to) grant (3rd party) applications unlimited backgrounding was (and is) a design choice (and in retrospect a good one)
It would not probably be a decision Apple made based on consumer use but on Apple business needs. Most people have a computer or device that is many more powerful than what they ever use it for.
Not just for windows, they would need to emulate intel machine code to even run OS X apps (until the 3rd party apps were recompiled into ARM machine code (and we have an example of just how long that takes in the real world based on the PPC-> Intel transition) Interpreting machine code, rather than direct execution, takes a heavy toll on execution (4-5X slower is conservative depending on interpreter efficiency)