unless I missed some gpu announcements, the SGX543 is pretty much top of the line.
Apple's gets unreleased chips from Intel and Qualcomm and they don't even own a part of those companies (as far as I know). I would think that Apple's 9.5% ownership of ImgTech would be helpful in getting them some early and tailored components.
Didn't Apple claim that the iPad 2 had 7 X more graphics power than the iPad 1?
If there was an equal increase in graphics power from iPad 2 to iPad 3, then 7 x 786,432 would be more than 5 million.
That's what I was getting at. What do they mean by graphics power? There are many ways that simple term can be marketed.
Quote:
"And with up to nine times the graphics performance of the first-generation iPad, everything on iPad 2 is even more fluid and realistic, from gameplay to scrolling through your photo library."
Apple's gets unreleased chips from Intel and Qualcomm and they don't even own a part of those companies (as far as I know). I would think that Apple's 9.5% ownership of ImgTech would be helpful in getting them some early and tailored components.
good point, I hadn't consider that. Still pretty crazy to think about; you need a 4x increase in performance to match the ipad2 assuming perfect performance scaling with resolution (its not).
I know the mobile sector is in a state of hyper-moores law at the moment, but I still cannot picture such a huge jump in performance over a single generation.
There are many ways that simple term can be marketed.
Yes, that is true. I guess that nobody really knows, but we will all know the answer when the iPad 3 is finally released. If 7 X more power truly means that it can push around 7 x as many pixels, then the retina display shouldn't be any problem at all.
I just saw the quote that you added to your post where it says 9 X more graphics power, so that should make it even easier for them.
good point, I hadn't consider that. Still pretty crazy to think about; you need a 4x increase in performance to match the ipad2 assuming perfect performance scaling with resolution (its not).
I know the mobile sector is in a state of hyper-moores law at the moment, but I still cannot picture such a huge jump in performance over a single generation.
This is a preemptive reply? People will say that Apple did it with the iPhone 4 over the iPhone 3GS. That was going from 153,600 pixels to 614,400 for a release with the A4 chip that was already being used in the iPad pushing even more at 786,432 pixels. That means Apple had already had the the right GPU for the job for the iPad release so it wasn't an issue to push that many pixels 5 months later for the iPhone release.
This is a whole new game. I'm sure the current GPU can push that many pixels, but it's battery life and performance that are the issue. I can see other vendors pushing out these displays without a care about the total user experience, but not Apple. That said, all signs point to Apple finally having this ready to go for next year.
Even going by those actual benchmarks, the iPad 2 GPU still blows the iPad 1 out of the water.
The first test was over 3 x better than the iPad 1. The second test was almost 5 x more powerful than the iPad 1 and the last test was more than 5 x more powerful than the iPad 1.
If these guys are trying to impress us with this information they are failing terribly. I mean, come on, March - April Apple will release a new iPad. REALLY.
In other news Analysts have confirmed that water is definitely wet etc etc.
I really hope these guys don't get paid for this information, its now crossed the line into total click bait these days....... dammit.
I have my doubts on the 'retina' display. Don't get me wrong, I would be elated to see such a display on a tablet, but the fact that its pushing significantly more pixels than a 1080p display, plus the fact that the majority of laptops can't even source decent 720p panels leaves me somewhat doubtful. To put it in perspective, its is as many pixels as the apple 30" cinema display in a 10" handheld device. That's just mindblowing to me.
eitherway, with or without a retina display, I'll be interest to see what apple does with the ipad3 and a6. Google and asus have thrown down the gauntlet with ICS and the transformer prime respectively; lets see how apple responds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
good point, I hadn't consider that. Still pretty crazy to think about; you need a 4x increase in performance to match the ipad2 assuming perfect performance scaling with resolution (its not).
I know the mobile sector is in a state of hyper-moores law at the moment, but I still cannot picture such a huge jump in performance over a single generation.
Isn't there a difference in that unlike the case on computer monitors, the "retina" approach is to render all screen elements at the same size as the previous non-pixel doubled screen, except crisper? Isn't that what Apple did when it intro'd the iPhone Retina Display? Partly to make developers' lives easier by just multiplying resolution and doing nothing to change perspective and apparent canvas size?
So does that mean the extra work to display all the extra pixels is easier on CPU/GPU resources that when you display more "real estate" in the case of higher resolution on a Mac screen? Maybe I'm saying it wrong, but I think we're talking about a somewhat different display task.....???
Isn't there a difference in that unlike the case on computer monitors, the "retina" approach is to render all screen elements at the same size as the previous non-pixel doubled screen, except crisper?
That's only when you 2x something, like an old app to make it work.
Otherwise, it'll be just like a computer monitor, only insanely better, because the average computer monitor will be a joke compared to it. I'm sitting on a 1920x1080 27" monitor right now, and that's pretty common. The iPad will blow that away, and at 9.7", it's going to look ridiculous. And also, if it's IPS, like the iPad 1 and iPad 2, then that's also going to be much better than the average person's monitor, as most of those are TN panels.
Anand admits that they don't have any information. They're simply guessing based on history. If the A15 is ready, Apple will probably use it. If not, they'll use A9. It's that simple. And since no one here knows if the A15 will be ready for Apple to use, there's no point discussing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
its marketing speak, I'll take it with a helping of salt.
Nah, I can't see that happening. Apple's always used the same CPU's for the iPads and the iPhones, with the iPhone CPU running underclocked versions of the iPad CPU.
"Always" is a trick word, considering the sample size is 2. Apple also "always" released its new iPhones in June. But when they needed to change that, they changed it. It's possible Apple will quietly speed-bump the iPad in the Spring (2S?) and then pop out a major update (3) when the cortex A15 chips are ready, if they're really going to be that impressive.
"Always" is a trick word, considering the sample size is 2. Apple also "always" released its new iPhones in June. But when they needed to change that, they changed it. It's possible Apple will quietly speed-bump the iPad in the Spring (2S?) and then pop out a major update (3) when the cortex A15 chips are ready, if they're really going to be that impressive.
You're correct, the sample size is only 2, so anything is possible, but if it is only a minor speed bump or an "iPad 2S", then I'm probably going to have to stay away from forums for a while when it comes out as the whining and moaning will just be incredible, unlike anything seen before.
You're correct, the sample size is only 2, so anything is possible, but if it is only a minor speed bump or an "iPad 2S", then I'm probably going to have to stay away from forums for a while when it comes out as the whining and moaning will just be incredible, unlike anything seen before.
Or better yet - if Apple improves all of the internals of the iPad and makes it a demonstrably better product yet leaves the case unchanged, the noise from the whiners will be deafening.
Comments
what's better than the SGX543 tho?
mali400?
unless I missed some gpu announcements, the SGX543 is pretty much top of the line.
No, sorry, I don't know. I admit to being ignorant when it comes to following the latest news on chip designs on sites like anandtech etc.
what's better than the SGX543 tho?
mali400?
unless I missed some gpu announcements, the SGX543 is pretty much top of the line.
Apple's gets unreleased chips from Intel and Qualcomm and they don't even own a part of those companies (as far as I know). I would think that Apple's 9.5% ownership of ImgTech would be helpful in getting them some early and tailored components.
We're talking going from 786,432 pixels to 3,145,728 pixels.
Didn't Apple claim that the iPad 2 had 7 X more graphics power than the iPad 1?
If there was an equal increase in graphics power from iPad 2 to iPad 3, then 7 x 786,432 would be more than 5 million.
Didn't Apple claim that the iPad 2 had 7 X more graphics power than the iPad 1?
If there was an equal increase in graphics power from iPad 2 to iPad 3, then 7 x 786,432 would be more than 5 million.
That's what I was getting at. What do they mean by graphics power? There are many ways that simple term can be marketed.
"And with up to nine times the graphics performance of the first-generation iPad, everything on iPad 2 is even more fluid and realistic, from gameplay to scrolling through your photo library."
Apple's gets unreleased chips from Intel and Qualcomm and they don't even own a part of those companies (as far as I know). I would think that Apple's 9.5% ownership of ImgTech would be helpful in getting them some early and tailored components.
good point, I hadn't consider that. Still pretty crazy to think about; you need a 4x increase in performance to match the ipad2 assuming perfect performance scaling with resolution (its not).
I know the mobile sector is in a state of hyper-moores law at the moment, but I still cannot picture such a huge jump in performance over a single generation.
There are many ways that simple term can be marketed.
Yes, that is true. I guess that nobody really knows, but we will all know the answer when the iPad 3 is finally released. If 7 X more power truly means that it can push around 7 x as many pixels, then the retina display shouldn't be any problem at all.
I just saw the quote that you added to your post where it says 9 X more graphics power, so that should make it even easier for them.
That's what I was getting at. What do they mean by graphics power? There are many ways that simple term can be marketed.
its marketing speak, I'll take it with a helping of salt.
go by actual benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4216/a...p2-benchmarked
good point, I hadn't consider that. Still pretty crazy to think about; you need a 4x increase in performance to match the ipad2 assuming perfect performance scaling with resolution (its not).
I know the mobile sector is in a state of hyper-moores law at the moment, but I still cannot picture such a huge jump in performance over a single generation.
This is a preemptive reply? People will say that Apple did it with the iPhone 4 over the iPhone 3GS. That was going from 153,600 pixels to 614,400 for a release with the A4 chip that was already being used in the iPad pushing even more at 786,432 pixels. That means Apple had already had the the right GPU for the job for the iPad release so it wasn't an issue to push that many pixels 5 months later for the iPhone release.
This is a whole new game. I'm sure the current GPU can push that many pixels, but it's battery life and performance that are the issue. I can see other vendors pushing out these displays without a care about the total user experience, but not Apple. That said, all signs point to Apple finally having this ready to go for next year.
its marketing speak, I'll take it with a helping of salt.
go by actual benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4216/a...p2-benchmarked
Even going by those actual benchmarks, the iPad 2 GPU still blows the iPad 1 out of the water.
The first test was over 3 x better than the iPad 1. The second test was almost 5 x more powerful than the iPad 1 and the last test was more than 5 x more powerful than the iPad 1.
In other news Analysts have confirmed that water is definitely wet etc etc.
I really hope these guys don't get paid for this information, its now crossed the line into total click bait these days....... dammit.
I have my doubts on the 'retina' display. Don't get me wrong, I would be elated to see such a display on a tablet, but the fact that its pushing significantly more pixels than a 1080p display, plus the fact that the majority of laptops can't even source decent 720p panels leaves me somewhat doubtful. To put it in perspective, its is as many pixels as the apple 30" cinema display in a 10" handheld device. That's just mindblowing to me.
eitherway, with or without a retina display, I'll be interest to see what apple does with the ipad3 and a6. Google and asus have thrown down the gauntlet with ICS and the transformer prime respectively; lets see how apple responds.
good point, I hadn't consider that. Still pretty crazy to think about; you need a 4x increase in performance to match the ipad2 assuming perfect performance scaling with resolution (its not).
I know the mobile sector is in a state of hyper-moores law at the moment, but I still cannot picture such a huge jump in performance over a single generation.
Isn't there a difference in that unlike the case on computer monitors, the "retina" approach is to render all screen elements at the same size as the previous non-pixel doubled screen, except crisper? Isn't that what Apple did when it intro'd the iPhone Retina Display? Partly to make developers' lives easier by just multiplying resolution and doing nothing to change perspective and apparent canvas size?
So does that mean the extra work to display all the extra pixels is easier on CPU/GPU resources that when you display more "real estate" in the case of higher resolution on a Mac screen? Maybe I'm saying it wrong, but I think we're talking about a somewhat different display task.....???
Isn't there a difference in that unlike the case on computer monitors, the "retina" approach is to render all screen elements at the same size as the previous non-pixel doubled screen, except crisper?
That's only when you 2x something, like an old app to make it work.
Otherwise, it'll be just like a computer monitor, only insanely better, because the average computer monitor will be a joke compared to it. I'm sitting on a 1920x1080 27" monitor right now, and that's pretty common. The iPad will blow that away, and at 9.7", it's going to look ridiculous. And also, if it's IPS, like the iPad 1 and iPad 2, then that's also going to be much better than the average person's monitor, as most of those are TN panels.
These iPad3 rumors are all lining up...
I think we are overdue for some wide-eyed iPad4 rumors!
Might as well re-start the new form factor iPhone rumors, as well. And the Apple TV rumors.
Anand predicts a 32nm A9-based design for A6, and I'm inclined to believe him.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4971/a...-att-verizon/7
Anand admits that they don't have any information. They're simply guessing based on history. If the A15 is ready, Apple will probably use it. If not, they'll use A9. It's that simple. And since no one here knows if the A15 will be ready for Apple to use, there's no point discussing it.
its marketing speak, I'll take it with a helping of salt.
go by actual benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4216/a...p2-benchmarked
Those benchmarks show a performance gain as high as 7X - which is exactly what Apple said.
Or were you so gullible that you thought that 'up to 7x' means '7x on every single test'?
Apple will update one of their most popular products, thereby ensuring that they sell more of them next year and stay in business.
Who would have thunk it!?!
Nah, I can't see that happening. Apple's always used the same CPU's for the iPads and the iPhones, with the iPhone CPU running underclocked versions of the iPad CPU.
"Always" is a trick word, considering the sample size is 2. Apple also "always" released its new iPhones in June. But when they needed to change that, they changed it. It's possible Apple will quietly speed-bump the iPad in the Spring (2S?) and then pop out a major update (3) when the cortex A15 chips are ready, if they're really going to be that impressive.
"Always" is a trick word, considering the sample size is 2. Apple also "always" released its new iPhones in June. But when they needed to change that, they changed it. It's possible Apple will quietly speed-bump the iPad in the Spring (2S?) and then pop out a major update (3) when the cortex A15 chips are ready, if they're really going to be that impressive.
You're correct, the sample size is only 2, so anything is possible, but if it is only a minor speed bump or an "iPad 2S", then I'm probably going to have to stay away from forums for a while when it comes out as the whining and moaning will just be incredible, unlike anything seen before.
You're correct, the sample size is only 2, so anything is possible, but if it is only a minor speed bump or an "iPad 2S", then I'm probably going to have to stay away from forums for a while when it comes out as the whining and moaning will just be incredible, unlike anything seen before.
Or better yet - if Apple improves all of the internals of the iPad and makes it a demonstrably better product yet leaves the case unchanged, the noise from the whiners will be deafening.