When dismissing the idea of laptops with touchscreens, Mac users keep citing ergonomic issues. But when we have iPads with touchscreens propped up on a stand with a physical keyboard attached, essentially becoming the very thing Mac users are dismissing, I don't see those same Mac users arguing ergonomics. Why is that?
Geekbench 3 has never been a reliable benchmark for comparing x86 and ARMv8. You wouldn't see reputable websites such as Anandtech try and use it for that purpose.
The i3 in the SP3 is 22 nm Haswell and the SP4 uses 14 nm Skylake, a whole tick-tock ahead (Haswell --> Broadwell --> Skylake). The core m3 SP4 scores ~42,000 while the iPad Pro scores ~33,000 (from Futuremark's webpage). Either way, 3DMark Ice Storm tests with DX9_3 and OpenGL ES 2.0. It runs high precision on Windows devices and half precision on iOS and Android. Not exactly a reliable benchmark for modern devices. Of course the iPad with iOS can't run DX12 (or even DX11) equivalent benchmarks, so we can't even compare that properly.
Of course iPad can't run dx11 or 12 benches. That is a Windows only api. It's like judging Windows by its ability to run apple exclusive api's like METAL or something like that. Also, the reason why I pointed out the i3 when I was talking about 3dmark is because those are the scores that are given from within 3dmarks app itself. It doesn't give scores on the core m3 sp4 when I look. Also it really does not matter as to what the sp4 scores because two years ago we wouldn't even be having this conversation and two years from now the whole conversation will likely be very different. The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable. That's my point so you can put it back in your pants.
look, you're the one that got bent out of shape because some article that's not this one, said that the iPad pro was faster than then surface pro 4. Well I was only telling you why that is. Don't screed at me like I wrote the damn article or am making the claims that the article made.
"DX12 (or even DX11) equivalent benchmarks". I'm not saying it has to run DX12/DX11. There are other API's that have a comparable feature set to DX11, OpenGL 4.x or Vulkan, but Apple's Metal only offers an equivalent feature set to OpenGL ES 3.1.
Why is that remarkable? The Y series i3 in the Surface Pro 3 was a terrible implementation of Intel's worst Core chip, it scored considerably lower than the U series i5 in the Surface Pro 3. How is getting close to a 2 year old chip remarkable in a benchmark that holds very little relevance? 2 years ago Apple also wasn't making SoC's for a device as large as the iPad Pro. The i5 from 2 years ago scored higher than the iPad Pro today.
Of course iPad can't run dx11 or 12 benches. That is a Windows only api. It's like judging Windows by its ability to run apple exclusive api's like METAL or something like that. Also, the reason why I pointed out the i3 when I was talking about 3dmark is because those are the scores that are given from within 3dmarks app itself. It doesn't give scores on the core m3 sp4 when I look. Also it really does not matter as to what the sp4 scores because two years ago we wouldn't even be having this conversation and two years from now the whole conversation will likely be very different. The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable. That's my point so you can put it back in your pants.
look, you're the one that got bent out of shape because some article that's not this one, said that the iPad pro was faster than then surface pro 4. Well I was only telling you why that is. Don't screed at me like I wrote the damn article or am making the claims that the article made.
"DX12 (or even DX11) equivalent benchmarks". I'm not saying it has to run DX12/DX11. There are other API's that have a comparable feature set to DX11, OpenGL 4.x or Vulkan, but Apple's Metal only offers an equivalent feature set to OpenGL ES 3.1.
Why is that remarkable? The Y series i3 in the Surface Pro 3 was a terrible implementation of Intel's worst Core chip, it scored considerably lower than the U series i5 in the Surface Pro 3. How is getting close to a 2 year old chip remarkable in a benchmark that holds very little relevance? 2 years ago Apple also wasn't making SoC's for a device as large as the iPad Pro. The i5 from 2 years ago scored higher than the iPad Pro today.
Is Vulkan out yet?
also, it doesn't matter that it scored 'considerably lower' than the U series on the surface pro 3 when you consider the price difference and the fact that the i5 NEEDS fans in order to stay cool. You can keep that noise.
When dismissing the idea of laptops with touchscreens, Mac users keep citing ergonomic issues. But when we have iPads with touchscreens propped up on a stand with a physical keyboard attached, essentially becoming the very thing Mac users are dismissing, I don't see those same Mac users arguing ergonomics. Why is that?
Maybe it's because I don't use the smart keyboard or prop my iPad pro up on a stand. And doing so would be optional at best. There's that.
why do haters keep bringing up the keyboard today when the original iPad had a first party keyboard accessory that Steve jobs introduced in the same keynote as the original ipad?
It would really be nice to know why this is.
I only want want to know because it's really kinda obnoxious.
You know, since that's the configuration of the m3 surface pro 4.
Manhattan offscreen: 31.4 fps if I'm reading that correctly.
Is Vulkan out yet?
also, it doesn't matter that it scored 'considerably lower' than the U series on the surface pro 3 when you consider the price difference and the fact that the i5 NEEDS fans in order to stay cool. You can keep that noise.
GFXBench is a mess for Intel and x86 in general. It uses OpenGL for Windows devices as well, stay very clear of that (also Manhattan Offscreen says 86.5 FPS, Manhattan 3.1 says 34.1 FPS). To make things even stranger, in the Car Chase Offscreen (GFXBench 4.0) which looks at features such as tessellation, the core m chip scores 230.8 FPS. According to the same benchmark, the HD 6000 in the MacBook Air scores 25 FPS in Manhatten Offscreen which would make it a little more powerful than an iPhone 6. So again, stay clear!
Yes, Vulkan 1.0 launched this past February.
Of course it needed a fan, it was 2 generations old on a 22 nm process. Why would that be a surprise? Price difference was ~$200 for the entry i5 model ($999), but that also doubled the SSD size from the i3 model ($799). The core m and recent U series chips are a new direction for Intel in terms of bringing higher end parts to lower TDP levels. You also keep talking about 'parity' with benchmarks that can't even compare these devices properly.
Document5 has just about everything you could ask for, only thing I;d like is remote browsing/access, right now you have to specifically download files locally to use them, I'd like a mode wee you can keep the file on the server and manipulate it there. Local document management though is fine.
When dismissing the idea of laptops with touchscreens, Mac users keep citing ergonomic issues. But when we have iPads with touchscreens propped up on a stand with a physical keyboard attached, essentially becoming the very thing Mac users are dismissing, I don't see those same Mac users arguing ergonomics. Why is that?
Maybe it's because I don't use the smart keyboard or prop my iPad pro up on a stand. And doing so would be optional at best. There's that.
why do haters keep bringing up the keyboard today when the original iPad had a first party keyboard accessory that Steve jobs introduced in the same keynote as the original ipad?
It would really be nice to know why this is.
I only want want to know because it's really kinda obnoxious.
When dismissing the idea of laptops with touchscreens, Mac users keep citing ergonomic issues. But when we have iPads with touchscreens propped up on a stand with a physical keyboard attached, essentially becoming the very thing Mac users are dismissing, I don't see those same Mac users arguing ergonomics. Why is that?
Why is that you are fracking in my ignore file, because of your shitty memory and bad faith arguments.
You know, since that's the configuration of the m3 surface pro 4.
Manhattan offscreen: 31.4 fps if I'm reading that correctly.
Is Vulkan out yet?
also, it doesn't matter that it scored 'considerably lower' than the U series on the surface pro 3 when you consider the price difference and the fact that the i5 NEEDS fans in order to stay cool. You can keep that noise.
GFXBench is a mess for Intel and x86 in general. It uses OpenGL for Windows devices as well, stay very clear of that (also Manhattan Offscreen says 86.5 FPS, Manhattan 3.1 says 34.1 FPS). To make things even stranger, in the Car Chase Offscreen (GFXBench 4.0) which looks at features such as tessellation, the core m chip scores 230.8 FPS. According to the same benchmark, the HD 6000 in the MacBook Air scores 25 FPS in Manhatten Offscreen which would make it a little more powerful than an iPhone 6. So again, stay clear!
Yes, Vulkan 1.0 launched this past February.
Of course it needed a fan, it was 2 generations old on a 22 nm process. Why would that be a surprise? Price difference was ~$200 for the entry i5 model ($999), but that also doubled the SSD size from the i3 model ($799). The core m and recent U series chips are a new direction for Intel in terms of bringing higher end parts to lower TDP levels. You also keep talking about 'parity' with benchmarks that can't even compare these devices properly.
1) you brought up gfxbench, not I. 2) Entry i5 model does NOT double the ssd size of the m3 model. They both have 128gb of storage.
Also so where and *I* talking about parity with anything? It seems to me that you're projecting your salt over the guy who wrote the article onto me. I only said that it was remarkable that the iPad pro performed nearly as well in a graphics test. Last I checked, that's in terms of being able to put pictures on a screen. You can't compare the Xbox to a PlayStation 'properly' but I can look at bayonets for the PS3 and bayonets for the 360 and say that the 360 version is better. How it got to be better is irrelivent. My point is that it is impressive that you can take a device, which is, in actuality a small board the size of a finger when you strip away the screen and battery, and have a device that can produce results that are even part of the conversation. That was it.
Maybe it's because I don't use the smart keyboard or prop my iPad pro up on a stand. And doing so would be optional at best. There's that.
why do haters keep bringing up the keyboard today when the original iPad had a first party keyboard accessory that Steve jobs introduced in the same keynote as the original ipad?
It would really be nice to know why this is.
I only want want to know because it's really kinda obnoxious.
Because bad faith and corrupted brain, etc.
certainly seems that way. It's really obnoxious that people seem to think that the smart keyboard is something that apple just now decided to do. Why, they'd have to ignore the fact that Apple already made a keyboard for the iPad before as well as ignore apple's stack of patent applications going back to before the iPad of keyboards for tablets and various connection technologies/techniques.
GFXBench is a mess for Intel and x86 in general. It uses OpenGL for Windows devices as well, stay very clear of that (also Manhattan Offscreen says 86.5 FPS, Manhattan 3.1 says 34.1 FPS). To make things even stranger, in the Car Chase Offscreen (GFXBench 4.0) which looks at features such as tessellation, the core m chip scores 230.8 FPS. According to the same benchmark, the HD 6000 in the MacBook Air scores 25 FPS in Manhatten Offscreen which would make it a little more powerful than an iPhone 6. So again, stay clear!
Yes, Vulkan 1.0 launched this past February.
Of course it needed a fan, it was 2 generations old on a 22 nm process. Why would that be a surprise? Price difference was ~$200 for the entry i5 model ($999), but that also doubled the SSD size from the i3 model ($799). The core m and recent U series chips are a new direction for Intel in terms of bringing higher end parts to lower TDP levels. You also keep talking about 'parity' with benchmarks that can't even compare these devices properly.
1) you brought up gfxbench, not I. 2) Entry i5 model does NOT double the ssd size of the m3 model. They both have 128gb of storage.
Also so where and *I* talking about parity with anything? It seems to me that you're projecting your salt over the guy who wrote the article onto me. I only said that it was remarkable that the iPad pro performed nearly as well in a graphics test. Last I checked, that's in terms of being able to put pictures on a screen. You can't compare the Xbox to a PlayStation 'properly' but I can look at bayonets for the PS3 and bayonets for the 360 and say that the 360 version is better. How it got to be better is irrelivent. My point is that it is impressive that you can take a device, which is, in actuality a small board the size of a finger when you strip away the screen and battery, and have a device that can produce results that are even part of the conversation. That was it.
I brought up GFXBench to show the score between 3 iPad's with a mobile benchmark made with Metal in mind.
I'm talking about the launch prices for the Surface Pro 3, clearly. There is no "i3" version of the Surface Pro 4. Just another case of you not taking the time to actually read my posts.
"The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable." - Your words.
Why are you talking about an Xbox and a Playstation? You're trying to compare mobile benchmarks commonly used for ARM devices, not designed for modern x86 hardware.
I have no clue what you're talking about with "the size of your finger". All of these chips are small.
1) you brought up gfxbench, not I. 2) Entry i5 model does NOT double the ssd size of the m3 model. They both have 128gb of storage.
Also so where and *I* talking about parity with anything? It seems to me that you're projecting your salt over the guy who wrote the article onto me. I only said that it was remarkable that the iPad pro performed nearly as well in a graphics test. Last I checked, that's in terms of being able to put pictures on a screen. You can't compare the Xbox to a PlayStation 'properly' but I can look at bayonets for the PS3 and bayonets for the 360 and say that the 360 version is better. How it got to be better is irrelivent. My point is that it is impressive that you can take a device, which is, in actuality a small board the size of a finger when you strip away the screen and battery, and have a device that can produce results that are even part of the conversation. That was it.
I brought up GFXBench to show the score between 3 iPad's with a mobile benchmark made with Metal in mind.
I'm talking about the launch prices for the Surface Pro 3, clearly. There is no "i3" version of the Surface Pro 4. Just another case of you not taking the time to actually read my posts.
"The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable." - Your words.
Why are you talking about an Xbox and a Playstation? You're trying to compare mobile benchmarks commonly used for ARM devices, not designed for modern x86 hardware.
I have no clue what you're talking about with "the size of your finger". All of these chips are small.
1) In that same benchmark, that you brought up, the iPad pro's whooped the m3 surface pro 4. Just sayin'. 2) the launch prices of the surface pro 3 are irrelivent since the surface pro 4 came out before the iPad pro. If there is a discrepancy in the price, blame Microsoft for that. 3) there's nothing wrong with me saying "The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable." two years ago the results wouldn't even be close to the same. 4) incorrect. I'm comparing graphics benchmarks which test graphics performance. If you have a problem with the results, then take that up with 3dmark and GFXbench. 5) let's see...
surface pro 4 tear down results:
Ipad ad pro tear down results
Which board better fits the description "The size of a finger"? Which one is significantly smaller?
Interestingly, Apple configures the 9.7 inch Air 2 and Pro models with different capacities, making it more difficult to directly compare the two. iPad Air 2 is offered in 16 and 64GB versions, while the new iPad Pro comes in 32, 64 and 256GB editions. The Air 2 is now priced starting at $399, while the 9.7 inch Pro is $200 more and the 12.9 inch Pro carries yet another $200 premium. That's about as simple of pricing differentiation as one could ask for.
The new 9.7 inch iPad Pro comes in 32, 128 (not 64GB) and 256GB editions. Because none of the storage configurations are the same the price differentiation with the Air 2 is not simple.
9.7 iPd Air 2 64 GB $499
9.7 iPad Pro 32 GB $599
9.7 iPad Pro 128 GB $749.
Frankly because the Air is a lot cheaper and if someone does not need the Pencil or the keyboard connector (and considering that the Air 2 is close in speed to the new IP Pro), the Air 2 will be the better deal for a lot of buyers.
I brought up GFXBench to show the score between 3 iPad's with a mobile benchmark made with Metal in mind.
I'm talking about the launch prices for the Surface Pro 3, clearly. There is no "i3" version of the Surface Pro 4. Just another case of you not taking the time to actually read my posts.
"The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable." - Your words.
Why are you talking about an Xbox and a Playstation? You're trying to compare mobile benchmarks commonly used for ARM devices, not designed for modern x86 hardware.
I have no clue what you're talking about with "the size of your finger". All of these chips are small.
1) In that same benchmark, that you brought up, the iPad pro's whooped the m3 surface pro 4. Just sayin'. 2) the launch prices of the surface pro 3 are irrelivent since the surface pro 4 came out before the iPad pro. If there is a discrepancy in the price, blame Microsoft for that. 3) there's nothing wrong with me saying "The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable." two years ago the results wouldn't even be close to the same. 4) incorrect. I'm comparing graphics benchmarks which test graphics performance. If you have a problem with the results, then take that up with 3dmark and GFXbench. 5) let's see...
surface pro 4 tear down results:
Ipad ad pro tear down results
Which board better fits the description "The size of a finger"? Which one is significantly smaller?
1) In the benchmark that I brought up, I didn't compare ARM and x86. In the benchmark that I brought up an iPhone 6 comes close to an i5 MacBook Air. You know damn well what I said and the context I put it in.
2) You mentioned pricing with regards to the Surface Pro 3, so I followed suit, I have no clue what you're trying to say.
3) There is still something wrong when you're trying to use a benchmark that can't properly compare the devices!
4) You're incorrectly using the information. They list very clearly the limitations and restrictions of their benchmarks. They aren't the problem, people that misuse the data are!
5) You're comparing a motherboard of a device that was designed to house up to an i7 U series processor, up to 1TB PCIe SSD and up to 16 GB RAM, really? You do know core m fits in a stick? (I guess not).
I don't understand what you're on about. You came at me in a very rude manner since my earlier post regarding the other article. Why? Because you didn't bother actually reading my post and clicking the link. Since then you've been spouting misinformation, nonsense and pulling information out of context.
That article claiming the iPad Pro outperforms the Surface Pro 4 is simply false. Then there's the comparison of software and ecosystem. iOS is not a viable alternative to Windows.
Yes. And one day ms will resurge to its natural position as God Boredom Technology and everyone will love being screwed again! Yay!
Windows Enthusiasts compare max spec Surface against one model iPad. The rest of the world compares iPad and Surface on price, ease of use, mobility, usability, practicality, resale value, build quality, reputation, and brand image. Oh - and apps, security, reliability, personal satisfaction, services, free services that don't suddenly cost money, and an executive team that makes an effort in the fields of environmental protection, recycling, working conditions in foreign countries, renewable resources, and human dignity and basic rights.
And double oh, a company that forces the ultra-corrupt US govt to adhere to its own constitution.
So you are right, DED right, that there's no competition. It is simply an error that you reached the wrong conclusion. Apple has no real competition at all.
Of course iPad can't run dx11 or 12 benches. That is a Windows only api. It's like judging Windows by its ability to run apple exclusive api's like METAL or something like that. Also, the reason why I pointed out the i3 when I was talking about 3dmark is because those are the scores that are given from within 3dmarks app itself. It doesn't give scores on the core m3 sp4 when I look. Also it really does not matter as to what the sp4 scores because two years ago we wouldn't even be having this conversation and two years from now the whole conversation will likely be very different. The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable. That's my point so you can put it back in your pants.
look, you're the one that got bent out of shape because some article that's not this one, said that the iPad pro was faster than then surface pro 4. Well I was only telling you why that is. Don't screed at me like I wrote the damn article or am making the claims that the article made.
"DX12 (or even DX11) equivalent benchmarks". I'm not saying it has to run DX12/DX11. There are other API's that have a comparable feature set to DX11, OpenGL 4.x or Vulkan, but Apple's Metal only offers an equivalent feature set to OpenGL ES 3.1.
Why is that remarkable? The Y series i3 in the Surface Pro 3 was a terrible implementation of Intel's worst Core chip, it scored considerably lower than the U series i5 in the Surface Pro 3. How is getting close to a 2 year old chip remarkable in a benchmark that holds very little relevance? 2 years ago Apple also wasn't making SoC's for a device as large as the iPad Pro. The i5 from 2 years ago scored higher than the iPad Pro today.
Because price and performance equivalencies. Why you so down on an ARM-powered device out-performing an x86? Are you an Intel investor or sales manager? The fact that an in-house ARM can even come close to an x86, while performing he same user-facing functions, is astounding - let alone out-classing them! Apple got it right way back in the late 80's early 90's - portability is the evolution of computing. Needing a big fan to blow hot air away from a CPU is horrifically inefficient. Your reactions indicate you are solely focussed on specs. Well, most people don't care when the specs render a 'mobile' device battery-dead in five hours. And as the last ten years unequivocally show, even from IDC or Gartner, static computing usage scenarios are not popular any more. As battery tech continues improving- at the hands of Apple - along with ARM efficiency, anything that relies on AC-connected power is going to continue it's path toward extinction. I appreciate tech knowledge. You obviously know your stuff! When we went from Pentium to Core to CoreDuo, specs were the only important thing. And his is why Apple is the new leader in town - they've shown that there's more to a successful product that expensive, inefficient, immobile computers. And now even cheap mobile-ish versions of the same model. I really recommend you get an iPad, download a few games, and see how good it is, if you haven't already. I'm always blown away by the user experience: simple, clean, efficient, and no anti-virus possible!
Great to have you back! I miss your work, and there's only so many times I can re-read Roughly Drafted/AppleInsider prior postings.
It seems that a bunch of Windows Enthusiasts have followed you to this posting, as there is great hostility surrounding specs. They really are very easy to spot.
To be sure, the 12.9 Pro has replaced both my Win7 home build and my OSX Mini. I've been stunned repeatedly with how flexible it is. The iPad mini 4 is still much better for games, I reckon, but the Pro has already moved me into iOS for everything else. The Mini is now just a server.
I'm afraid to stress that iPads including the Pro are the worst business devices you can ever think of. The iPad Pro still has only one port, has no file explorer, cannot run desktop softwares, no USB, lacks expandable or portable storage management, and lacks support for mouse input, etc etc. Perhaps more troubling for enterprise users is for better or for worse the lack of Active X support in the mobile version of Safari or support for legacy softwares. The limitations are just too many. A couple of days ago, I asked a client of mine to download his company bank statements in pdf and email as an attachment and guess what happened, his iPad kept sending links instead which could not be opened because of online banking security. I also tried it to no avail. I finally gave him my Surface pro 3 and guess what - it was as easy as ABC. It further confirmed that iPads are pretty useless as business tools - except if your job involves browsing, reading and writing articles. People are now realising that slapping a keyboard on an oversized iPad doesn’t turn Apple’s iOS-powered tablet into a real productivity device. Calling it “Pro” does not change the fact that it's still a tablet running a mobile phone OS, thereby suffering from the same software and hardware limitations that relegate most iPads to consumption devices. The only true "Pro" devices out there are Windows 10-based hybrids as they run both tablet and desktop apps. As long as the iPad Pro runs iOS, it'll never be a PC replacement for most people.
So the banking security is the fault of the iPads....you made me
Comments
GFXBench 3.0 - Manhattan Offscreen:
iPad Pro 12.9 (Metal) - 5017 Frames (80.9 FPS)
iPad Pro 9.7 (Metal) - 3117 Frames (51.1 FPS)
iPad Air 2 (Metal) - 2695 Frames (43.8 FPS)
Source: https://gfxbench.com/result.jsp
Why is that remarkable? The Y series i3 in the Surface Pro 3 was a terrible implementation of Intel's worst Core chip, it scored considerably lower than the U series i5 in the Surface Pro 3. How is getting close to a 2 year old chip remarkable in a benchmark that holds very little relevance? 2 years ago Apple also wasn't making SoC's for a device as large as the iPad Pro. The i5 from 2 years ago scored higher than the iPad Pro today.
https://gfxbench.com/device.jsp?D=Intel(R)+Core(TM)+m3-6Y30+CPU+with+HD+Graphics+515&testgroup=overall
You know, since that's the configuration of the m3 surface pro 4.
Manhattan offscreen: 31.4 fps if I'm reading that correctly.
Is Vulkan out yet?
also, it doesn't matter that it scored 'considerably lower' than the U series on the surface pro 3 when you consider the price difference and the fact that the i5 NEEDS fans in order to stay cool. You can keep that noise.
why do haters keep bringing up the keyboard today when the original iPad had a first party keyboard accessory that Steve jobs introduced in the same keynote as the original ipad?
It would really be nice to know why this is.
I only want want to know because it's really kinda obnoxious.
Yes, Vulkan 1.0 launched this past February.
Of course it needed a fan, it was 2 generations old on a 22 nm process. Why would that be a surprise? Price difference was ~$200 for the entry i5 model ($999), but that also doubled the SSD size from the i3 model ($799). The core m and recent U series chips are a new direction for Intel in terms of bringing higher end parts to lower TDP levels. You also keep talking about 'parity' with benchmarks that can't even compare these devices properly.
2) Entry i5 model does NOT double the ssd size of the m3 model. They both have 128gb of storage.
Also so where and *I* talking about parity with anything? It seems to me that you're projecting your salt over the guy who wrote the article onto me. I only said that it was remarkable that the iPad pro performed nearly as well in a graphics test. Last I checked, that's in terms of being able to put pictures on a screen. You can't compare the Xbox to a PlayStation 'properly' but I can look at bayonets for the PS3 and bayonets for the 360 and say that the 360 version is better. How it got to be better is irrelivent. My point is that it is impressive that you can take a device, which is, in actuality a small board the size of a finger when you strip away the screen and battery, and have a device that can produce results that are even part of the conversation. That was it.
I'm talking about the launch prices for the Surface Pro 3, clearly. There is no "i3" version of the Surface Pro 4. Just another case of you not taking the time to actually read my posts.
"The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable." - Your words.
Why are you talking about an Xbox and a Playstation? You're trying to compare mobile benchmarks commonly used for ARM devices, not designed for modern x86 hardware.
I have no clue what you're talking about with "the size of your finger". All of these chips are small.
2) the launch prices of the surface pro 3 are irrelivent since the surface pro 4 came out before the iPad pro. If there is a discrepancy in the price, blame Microsoft for that.
3) there's nothing wrong with me saying "The mere fact that the iPad pro scores on par with the i3 surface pro in that test is pretty remarkable." two years ago the results wouldn't even be close to the same.
4) incorrect. I'm comparing graphics benchmarks which test graphics performance. If you have a problem with the results, then take that up with 3dmark and GFXbench.
5) let's see...
surface pro 4 tear down results:
Ipad ad pro tear down results
Which board better fits the description "The size of a finger"? Which one is significantly smaller?
Because none of the storage configurations are the same the price differentiation with the Air 2 is not simple.
9.7 iPd Air 2 64 GB $499
9.7 iPad Pro 32 GB $599
9.7 iPad Pro 128 GB $749.
Frankly because the Air is a lot cheaper and if someone does not need the Pencil or the keyboard connector (and considering that the Air 2 is close in speed to the new IP Pro), the Air 2 will be the better deal for a lot of buyers.
2) You mentioned pricing with regards to the Surface Pro 3, so I followed suit, I have no clue what you're trying to say.
3) There is still something wrong when you're trying to use a benchmark that can't properly compare the devices!
4) You're incorrectly using the information. They list very clearly the limitations and restrictions of their benchmarks. They aren't the problem, people that misuse the data are!
5) You're comparing a motherboard of a device that was designed to house up to an i7 U series processor, up to 1TB PCIe SSD and up to 16 GB RAM, really? You do know core m fits in a stick? (I guess not).
I don't understand what you're on about. You came at me in a very rude manner since my earlier post regarding the other article. Why? Because you didn't bother actually reading my post and clicking the link. Since then you've been spouting misinformation, nonsense and pulling information out of context.
Windows Enthusiasts compare max spec Surface against one model iPad. The rest of the world compares iPad and Surface on price, ease of use, mobility, usability, practicality, resale value, build quality, reputation, and brand image. Oh - and apps, security, reliability, personal satisfaction, services, free services that don't suddenly cost money, and an executive team that makes an effort in the fields of environmental protection, recycling, working conditions in foreign countries, renewable resources, and human dignity and basic rights.
And double oh, a company that forces the ultra-corrupt US govt to adhere to its own constitution.
So you are right, DED right, that there's no competition. It is simply an error that you reached the wrong conclusion. Apple has no real competition at all.
Good luck with future trolling endeavours.
Why you so down on an ARM-powered device out-performing an x86? Are you an Intel investor or sales manager?
The fact that an in-house ARM can even come close to an x86, while performing he same user-facing functions, is astounding - let alone out-classing them!
Apple got it right way back in the late 80's early 90's - portability is the evolution of computing. Needing a big fan to blow hot air away from a CPU is horrifically inefficient.
Your reactions indicate you are solely focussed on specs. Well, most people don't care when the specs render a 'mobile' device battery-dead in five hours. And as the last ten years unequivocally show, even from IDC or Gartner, static computing usage scenarios are not popular any more.
As battery tech continues improving- at the hands of Apple - along with ARM efficiency, anything that relies on AC-connected power is going to continue it's path toward extinction.
I appreciate tech knowledge. You obviously know your stuff! When we went from Pentium to Core to CoreDuo, specs were the only important thing.
And his is why Apple is the new leader in town - they've shown that there's more to a successful product that expensive, inefficient, immobile computers. And now even cheap mobile-ish versions of the same model.
I really recommend you get an iPad, download a few games, and see how good it is, if you haven't already. I'm always blown away by the user experience: simple, clean, efficient, and no anti-virus possible!
It. Just. Works.
Great to have you back! I miss your work, and there's only so many times I can re-read Roughly Drafted/AppleInsider prior postings.
It seems that a bunch of Windows Enthusiasts have followed you to this posting, as there is great hostility surrounding specs. They really are very easy to spot.
To be sure, the 12.9 Pro has replaced both my Win7 home build and my OSX Mini. I've been stunned repeatedly with how flexible it is. The iPad mini 4 is still much better for games, I reckon, but the Pro has already moved me into iOS for everything else. The Mini is now just a server.
love your work!