Consumer Reports says Apple's new iPad heats to 116 degrees running games
Consumer Reports, the consumer advocacy group that gained notoriety for refusing to recommend Apple's iPhone 4 because of its external antenna, has tested Apple's new iPad and found it can heat up to 116 degrees when running graphic-intensive games [updated].
Update: The tests from Consumer Reports were quickly published on Tuesday afternoon, and the organization said its engineers recorded temperatures as high as 116 degrees Fahrenheit while playing Epic's "Infinity Blade II." The iPad was standing up with Apple's Smart Cover, the 4G LTE connection was not turned on, and the tablet was plugged in while the game ran for 45 minutes.
The highest unplugged temperature for the new iPad was found to be 113 degrees Fahrenheit, while plugged in it reached 116 degrees. Those temperatures were 13 degrees and 12 degrees hotter, respectively, than identical tests conducted with the iPad 2.
"During our tests, I held the new iPad in my hands. When it was at its hottest, it felt very warm but not especially uncomfortable if held for a brief period," author Donna L. Tapellini wrote.
The testing also found that the iPad wouldn't recharge its battery while the game was running and it was plugged in. Instead, the battery continued to drain, suggesting the power draw of the new A5X processor was too great for the iPad's USB connection to overcome during heavy use.
Earlier Tuesday, Consumer Reports indicated its plans to publish its findings. In a "First Look Review" published last week, Consumer Reports said Apple's third-generation tablet was "shaping up as the best tablet yet."
"The iPad's high-resolution display requires more power, and the efficiency of the A5X should help mitigate the battery drain it causes," the group wrote last week. "We'll post results of our battery life tests soon."
Of course, it's that larger battery, Retina display and more powerful quad-core graphics processing that have led to a slight increase in operating temperature on the new iPad, when compared to last year's iPad 2. Apple issued a comment on the matter earlier Tuesday, stating that the new iPad operates "well within" its temperature specifications.
The issue began to gain traction this week after an infrared test of the new iPad found it runs 10 degrees hotter, on average, than the iPad 2. The new iPad was measured at 92.5 degrees Fahrenheit, while the iPad 2 measured 83 degrees Fahrenheit.
Left: New iPad, Right: iPad 2. Credit: Tweakers.net
Consumer Reports made waves last year when it ranked the iPhone 4 the best smartphone available on the market, but later changed its stance and stated it couldn't recommend the iPhone 4. The group tested the iPhone 4 inside a controlled radio frequency isolation chamber, and found that covering the bottom left corner of the handset with one's bare hand could reduce reception.
But the consumer advocacy group took a more favorable view of the iPhone 4S when it was released last year, stating that any reception issues were addressed with the updated handset.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
Does this mean if you take an iPad and prevent any heat loss, wrap it in a blanket in your lap, etc. that it will be problem?
Does it mean if I take the iPad, do not let it sleep and place in under blankets in a bed it will be a fire hazard?
Do not understand? Sounds like a fishing expedition.
Of course with my luck the silly thing blows up.
Consumer Reports, that is, not Apple.
Consumer Reports lost all credibility with Antennagate, why would anyone trust them after that? They claimed, throughout the entire lifespan of the device (and even still now, I think), that they "couldn't recommend anyone purchase the iPhone 4 because of the antenna problem", despite it being their highest-rated product and the one with the most positive customer ratings, both by a huge margin. Oh, and the fact that the problem didn't actually exist and tens of millions of them were sold, keeping it the best-selling phone on the entire market until it was superseded by the next iPhone.
The assumption can easily be made that if they don't know squat about one field of which we have proper knowledge, they must not know squat about the other fields of which we have less knowledge.
I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.
I believe Apple already said that it takes longer to charge. How much investigation do you need?
I wonder how they'll backpedal from this farce.
Consumer Reports, that is, not Apple.
Consumer Reports lost all credibility with Antennagate, why would anyone trust them after that? They claimed, throughout the entire lifespan of the device (and even still now, I think), that they "couldn't recommend anyone purchase the iPhone 4 because of the antenna problem", despite it being their highest-rated product and the one with the most positive customer ratings, both by a huge margin. Oh, and the fact that the problem didn't actually exist and tens of millions of them were sold, keeping it the best-selling phone on the entire market until it was superseded by the next iPhone.
The assumption can easily be made that if they don't know squat about one field of which we have proper knowledge, they must not know squat about the other fields of which we have less knowledge.
You have to understand - no one actually expects real technical information from Consumer Reports. Anyone who cares about facts would get their information somewhere else.
CR makes its money by convincing people that CR is on the consumer's side - and creating these silly scam issues helps CR more than it hurts. They simply never retract their insanity and the consumers eat it up.
I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.
Investigation for what reason? Did Apple promise a certain charge time from a close to dead battery. I'm not sure what there is to investigate?
I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.
I haven't run mine flat yet, but I expect the charging time to increase in proportion to the battery capacity increase. Similarly, one should expect the thing to run warmer than the iPad2. The battery is 42WH compared to the iPad2's 25WH, but it lasts the same time. So the power dissipation (and therefore operating temperature) must increase.
I believe Apple already said that it takes longer to charge. How much investigation do you need?
You have to understand - no one actually expects real technical information from Consumer Reports. Anyone who cares about facts would get their information somewhere else.
CR makes its money by convincing people that CR is on the consumer's side - and creating these silly scam issues helps CR more than it hurts. They simply never retract their insanity and the consumers eat it up.
It's like local TV stations and all these 'we're looking out for you' consumer reports. The fact that anyone still uses CR is beyond me. Especially when you can go to pretty much any site these days and see customer reviews of products.
I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.
That ties in fairly well with a 5.5 hour charge from about 5% up to 80% that I saw earlier today...
You have to bear in mind how much bigger the battery is in the new one though. iPad 2 was a 25Wh battery, iPad (3rd Gen) is 42.5Wh - that is a 70% increase in capacity, so charging times are going to go up quite a bit...
The Devil's tab!
Apple is now a behemoth. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So if you love the company and what it stands for, why would you oppose holding it to account?
I wonder how they'll backpedal from this farce.
Consumer Reports, that is, not Apple.
Consumer Reports lost all credibility with Antennagate, why would anyone trust them after that? They claimed, throughout the entire lifespan of the device (and even still now, I think), that they "couldn't recommend anyone purchase the iPhone 4 because of the antenna problem", despite it being their highest-rated product and the one with the most positive customer ratings, both by a huge margin. Oh, and the fact that the problem didn't actually exist and tens of millions of them were sold, keeping it the best-selling phone on the entire market until it was superseded by the next iPhone.
The assumption can easily be made that if they don't know squat about one field of which we have proper knowledge, they must not know squat about the other fields of which we have less knowledge.
1.) Why were bumpers given out then? For free?
2.) Why was the antennae design changed?
3.) Why did SJ say to hold it another way?
That is if a problem never existed? Just sayin?
If only there was some way to move your hand on occasion or to rotate the device 180°. I just thought of a way! That thing I just said.
I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.
I believe Apple already said that it takes longer to charge. How much investigation do you need?
Don't worry, Mike Daisey and his "fair and balanced" reporting style is all over this one.
I wonder how they'll backpedal from this farce.
Consumer Reports, that is, not Apple.
Perhaps they will hire Daisey as PR man.
On another note, as an engineer, I find that picture very satisfying. Looking at the heat signature of the iPad you can see a very uniform change in temperature from the processor outward. To me this speaks of excellent thermal design. If it was a poor design, then you should see hot spots or larger, stepped changes in temperature.
Since haters know nothing about engineering, it's not surprising to see that none of them on all the blogs has even noticed this obvious fact.