liquidmark

sog35 said:

antonpablo said:

Apple's storage strategy is flat out a money grab

BULLSHIT.

32 GB is exactly the size iPad I want.  The $599 32GB iPad is exactly what I want.

Stop being so myopic. Apple is serving hundreds of millions of customers who having different uses and storage needs. 

If Apple product is too expensive for you there are literally hundreds of other alternatives.

mobiusstrip said:

Why regurgitate this "PC users" crap, especially several years too late?

It's more clear than ever that this so-called "convergence" should NOT happen.  When someone boots up a computer now, it's because he needs A COMPUTER.  Not a touchscreen gimmick with no proper I/O, file system, or keyboard.

Tablets are fine for specialty applications (like shop floors & retail) or playing media.  But Apple has so crippled its mobile devices that they'll never compete with computers.  You can't even get pictures from your camera onto your iPad, because Apple is so idiotically fearful.  Heaven forbid that these portable Unix computing devices have I/O capability.

The irony is that computers can interact with the world around them much more effectively than Apple's mobile devices.

And now Apple is allegedly removing the headphone jack.  It's as if they're calling consumers stupid, just to see who comes back for more.

AI2xxx said:

liquidmark said:

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.

 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?

foggyhill said:

liquidmark said:

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.

AI2xxx said:

liquidmark said:

Fine, compare those scores to this then...

https://gfxbench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&os=Windows&api=gl&cpu-arch=x86&hwtype=iGPU&hwname=Intel(R)%20HD%20Graphics%20515&did=26463104&D=Intel(R)%20Core(TM)%20m3-6Y30%20CPU%20with%20HD%20Graphics%20515

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.