backtop

Gadgets Apple iPad 2 Reviews Hit the Web
Brandon Hill (Blog) - March 9, 2011 9:00 PM
Print 49 comment(s) - last by Alexstarfire.. on Mar 10 at 8:07 PM

Apple's iPad 2
Apple's iPad 2 is a "safe" followup to the original

Apple's iPad 2 will launch officially tomorrow, but the reviews are up a day early. The iPad 2 is clearly an evolutionary upgrade to the original design, having slimmed down from 13.4mm to 8.8mm, and dropped a few ounces from 1.5 pounds to 1.3 pounds. 

As expected, the iPad 2 now features a dual-core A5 processor that Steve Jobs claims offers double the performance of the original A4 processor. The new graphics core supposedly delivers 9 times the performance of the first generation iPad. 

On the downside, the iPad 2 is stuck with the same 1024x768 resolution display that is a step down from the Motorola Xoom's 1280x800 display. Another disappointment is the rear camera used on the iPad 2. Whereas its iPhone 4 sibling uses a 5MP camera with LED flash (the Xoom also features 5MP rear camera), the iPad 2 makes do with a lowly 0.7MP camera without flash.

For the $500 price of entry, you'd think that Apple would spring for a superior camera than what's available in a $229 iPod touch. However, it appears that Apple is going more for looks and slimness which means that the thicker camera module in the iPhone 4 wouldn’t fit in the iPad 2’s sleek new body (the iPad 2 is actually thinner than the iPhone 4).

But enough of what we already know about the iPad 2; here's what reviewers have to say about Apple's newest tablet. 

Engadget’s Joshua Topolsky on the iPad 2’s performance (the iPad 2 now has 512MB of RAM, identical to that of the iPhone 4): 

The CPU and graphics performance of this tablet seem extremely impressive to us -- the iPad 2 performed excellently no matter what we threw at it, games seemed to have higher frame rates, and even when dealing with processor intensive apps like GarageBand, it rarely (if ever) seemed to be struggling. Still, on the specs front the iPad 2 feels very iterative. There's nothing here that is totally mind blowing, but there's nothing here that makes it feel far off from its nearest competition.

Topolsky also touches on the subpar camera: 

Let's just put this out there: the iPad 2 cameras are really pretty bad. They're not unusable, but it's clear that the sensors employed are not top shelf by any measure. If you have a fourth generation iPod touch with cameras, you can expect the same results. In fact, it seems to us that these are the SAME cameras used in the iPod touch -- there's an "HD" lens around back (which means it's roughly a single megapixel shooter), and on the front you've got a lowly VGA cam.  

MG Siegler of TechCrunch describes the iPad 2’s new body:

Overall, the device has a much more fluid design. Apple notes that the body now consists of two parts instead of three for the iPad 1. This makes it feel even more solid, and even more like a natural object instead of a machine.

The tapered edges make it feel better in your hands. And those edges also make the buttons on the side and top more pronounced (and a bit to use). Of course, the tapered bottom also makes the dock connector a bit harder to use, but that’s a minor nit. 

Jason Snell of MacWorld talks about the 3G performance of the iPad 2 on AT&T’s network:

The iPad 2’s connection to AT&T’s network has been upgraded from the original iPad models. Like the iPhone 4, the iPad 2 supports AT&T’s HSUPA/HSDPA system, which will result in faster 3G transfer in areas where that protocol is available. I managed a 2.2-mbps upload rate and a 1.1-mbps download rate from my house, comparable to the speeds I saw from the iPhone 4 on AT&T’s network. (Apple didn’t provide us with a Verizon-compatible version of the iPad 2 for review, but its transfer rates will likely be similar to those on the Verizon-compatible iPhone 4—generally slower than AT&T’s.) 

Walt Mossberg of AllThingsD perhaps summed up all of the reviews of the iPad 2 the best with his conclusion:

As new contenders move into the field, Apple isn’t likely to keep its 90% share of the booming tablet market. But the iPad 2 moves the goal posts, by being slimmer and lighter, boosting speed and power, and holding its price advantages, available apps and battery life. As of now, I can comfortably recommend it as the best tablet for average consumers. 

As we’re previous reported, there are three iPad 2 product lines. There is the Wi-Fi iPad 2 that is available in 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB storage capacities. AT&T and Verizon also have their own Wi-Fi+3G versions of the iPad 2 in 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB storage capacities. Prices range from $499 for the 16GB Wi-Fi iPad 2 to $829 for the 64GB iPad 2 Wi-Fi+3G on AT&T/Verizon.

You can read more reviews of the iPad 2 from Daring Fireball, The New York Times, The Daily, The USA Today, SlashGear, and Laptop Magazine.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/2011 10:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
What's up with the memory? People use these as web browsers with multiple tabs. 512 MB still seems pretty bad, never mind 256 MB that was on the first iPad. Many netbooks come with 1 GB or more and don't cost as much.

The Xoom seems like a good deal with the soso specs of the iPad. Double the RAM, better cameras, same browsing time on battery, higher resolution screen, and arguably a better OS. All of this starting at $550 for the wifi model of the Xoom. It's just thicker which may or may not be a deficit. I worry you can break the ipad since it's so thin. I am probably wrong though.




RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Zok on 3/9/2011 10:34:06 PM , Rating: 5
Well, in fairness to Apple, 512 MB is sufficient for the strength of the processor and the demands of the applications written for iOS.

If you want to discuss price regarding the Xoom, you really do have to take into account the iPad's (albeit now slightly lower resolution) expensive IPS panel, battery life, and better overall construction. The Xoom beats the iPad's processor, memory, and resolution, but loses to it in price, battery life, screen quality, size, weight, and app catalog. Also, as most reviews have stated, the Xoom really isn't finished yet (have to send in for the 4G upgrade) and many software features are slated for a future release.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By vol7ron on 3/9/2011 10:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
We'll probably see another Xoom (or Android competitor) before we see another iPad.

512MB might be just enough, but there's also no expandable memory slot. Reducing the amount of RAM should also reduce how much energy is being used.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Mitch101 on 3/10/2011 8:43:51 AM , Rating: 3
256MB is fine when your device doesn't support flash.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By dubldwn on 3/9/2011 10:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Xoom beats the iPad's processor

Eh? How's that? Tegra 2 vs. A5?


By ltcommanderdata on 3/9/2011 11:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
If the A5 is really using dual core Cortex A9 then it would be the same as Tegra 2. Hopefully people dissecting the iOS 4.3 build released today will figure it out, otherwise we'll have to wait post-launch on Friday.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Zok on 3/9/2011 11:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Has it been confirmed that the A5 employs the Cortex A9? Rumor mill suggested it didn't (A8 still, but dual core), but I haven't seen the proof myself.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By dubldwn on 3/9/2011 11:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I see. Just assumed they were A9's.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/2011 11:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
From Motorola's website:

BATTERY TYPE
24.5 W-hr
BROWSING OVER 3G
up to approx. 9 hrs.
BROWSING OVER WIFI
up to approx. 10 hrs.
MP3 PLAYBACK
up to approx. 3.3 days
STANDBY TIME2
up to approx. 14 days
VIDEO PLAYBACK TIME
up to approx. 10 hrs.
-------

I do believe Anand did a battery comparison and found that the Xoom and Ipad were about the same 9h-10h of battery life with the Xoom beating the Ipad in one test and the Ipad beating the Xoom in another. I think only web browsing was tested though.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By MDGeek on 3/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Alexstarfire on 3/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/2011 11:43:56 PM , Rating: 5
I almost forgot, one huge negative about the iPad is iTunes. I have not used such a horrible product since the late 90s to early 00s. I think many will agree with me on this.

I cannot say how the Android equivalent stacks up, but I don't believe Android has so many restrictions/inabilities.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Tony Swash on 3/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Alexstarfire on 3/10/2011 2:31:16 PM , Rating: 1
I say that's flawed logic because if people really cared about apps specifically made for a tablet they'd never have bought an iPad in the first place. It had very few apps that were made just for tablets when it launched so it's nearly a moot point. What matters is how rapidly the amount of tablet specific apps is growing. That 100 number is from about a week ago so I'm curious to know what it actually is now.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Netscorer on 3/10/2011 4:03:43 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure why people choose to downrate your response. I agree that quality of apps means more then pure quantity and iPad as of right now beats Android-based tablets handily. All premium apps first go to iPad and only later being ported to Android. Some, like Netflix, are exclusive to iPad. For regular consumers this is a very big attraction, whereas 512Mb vs 1Gb or slight difference in resolution are not.
We also have to take into account that AppStore is more user-friendly then Android Marketplace. If only Apple would provide standard connectivity options (microSD and microUSB)and dropped it's Flash resistance, this would be an ideal tablet for everyone, including geeks.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By vol7ron on 3/9/2011 10:39:11 PM , Rating: 1
I thought the Xoom was $7-800. If it's about the same price, I'd definitely get that. Otherwise, I'd just buy a Nook and put Android on that if I wanted a budget tablet (http://arst.ch/o35).

Though this iPad release was another letdown, Apple still reigns on pixels (maybe not resolutions, but ppi), weight/thinness, and battery life. I don't care about their crapp store - the actual apps that either entertain, bring value, are better my performance seem to be available on all major platforms.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/2011 11:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
Most people see the iPads starting price of $499 which is non-3g and comes with 16GB of storage. Many have reported that the wifi only Xoom will run $539 at Sam's Club. I cannot say if that will come with 32GB of

The iPad 3g 32GB costs $729.
The Xoom 3g (which only comes with 32GB) costs $799.

Remember, the Xoom has an SD slot and memory prices are pretty cheap. $40 can buy you 32 more GBs.

So iPad 3g 64GB costs $829
Xoom 3g (32GB installed) 32GB SD card will run you $839 or less.

In my opinion, the pricing of the Xoom is a bargain for what you get vs the iPad. It's just thicker, but better specs.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/2011 11:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Also, the upgrade to 4g is free when it becomes available.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Synastar on 3/10/2011 6:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
Plus $20 for a month of 1GB service on Verizon + $35 activation fee.. :(


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Synastar on 3/10/2011 6:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
Referring to Xoom.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By theapparition on 3/10/2011 9:06:33 AM , Rating: 2
That is incorrct. If you buy the unsubsidzed version, you don't have to pay for 3G/4G service, just like the iPad.

$799 out the door, period. Comare that to $729 for a similar memory (32GB) iPad2.

If you buy the subsidized verision, you're at $599 plus $20/mo.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Alexstarfire on 3/10/2011 2:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
If you buy a 3G version IDK why you wouldn't get service. Seems like a waste to pay for the capability and then not use it.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By LordSojar on 3/10/2011 7:55:03 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Plus $20 for a month of 1GB service on Verizon + $35 activation fee.. :(


Errr....no? That was a rumor and is a lie. I bought a Xoom... no activation or data plan was required on the unsubsidized tablet. You simply skip data plan setup and you are ready to go. Wifi works perfectly fine. Again, this was a lie/continued misinformation. It's simply not true.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/2011 10:50:28 PM , Rating: 1
Also, memory is dirt cheap at those levels, and so are cameras for portable devices. Maybe instead of Apple focusing on how slim they can make a device they should instead try to make it better.

1GB of memory and decent cameras (5 MP back and 1.3 MP front) would have probably cost Apple less than $50 (probably $25) to implement instead of 512 MB of RAM and the horrid cameras that a 2009 model phone can beat.

Many really wanted a higher resolution screen than what was available in the first ipad (which is the same screen in the ipad 2.) Guess what? 512 MB will not be able to run anything near 1080p resolution, nevermind the 2560x1600 that some wanted. The mobile CPUs and GPUs cannot begin to handle 2560x1600. The ipad's screen does not even have half the pixels of 1080p, can you imagine what it would require to run a retina display that would be closer to 2560x1600 at the ipad's screen size?

And what about the cameras? With a higher resolution screen, your pictures taken with an ipad would look like 3x5s.

I hope they consider upgrading all of the ipad's deficits next time instead of making it slimmer.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Solandri on 3/10/2011 12:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1GB of memory and decent cameras (5 MP back and 1.3 MP front) would have probably cost Apple less than $50 (probably $25) to implement instead of 512 MB of RAM and the horrid cameras that a 2009 model phone can beat.

Here's my complete guess based on no evidence whatsoever: Apple overestimated how many iPod Touches they would sell and had millions of those camera modules left over (or had a contract to purchase millions more). So they stuck them in something they knew would sell regardless - the iPad 2. Making a device which can output 1080p (when hooked up to a HDTV/monitor), and only putting a 720p camera in it is... baffling.

The amount of RAM on board: they were probably in late negotiations with a supplier for pricing on large quantities of the 1GB modules. Hence why the specs released during the iPad 2 announcement were all missing the amount of RAM. They couldn't reach a deal, which is why rumors now say it's 512 MB.

Most of the rumormill (including purported quotes from Apple employees) is saying wait for the iPad 3. That sounds like the right choice.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By omnicronx on 3/10/2011 9:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
My guess is the same thing that happened to the iPod Touch, too thin for a decent sensor at a cost effective price..

The RAM was no mistake either, for most uses there is no pressing reason why 512MB is not enough. Apple has little reason to deviate from keeping similar specs throughout their iPhone/iPod line/iPad line.

Could I use a better camera and more RAM? Sure! But I also care about pricepoint, as from a consumer standpoint the $500 pricepoint is very attractive.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By themaster08 on 3/10/2011 3:28:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1GB of memory and decent cameras (5 MP back and 1.3 MP front) would have probably cost Apple less than $50 (probably $25) to implement instead of 512 MB of RAM and the horrid cameras that a 2009 model phone can beat.
The iPad 2's technical specifications were more-or-less expected. If Apple made these rapid changes, what would be in the iPad 3?

Apple have never been a company to drastically change a successive product. Their incremental changes seem to work fine for them, and also give them some leeway as to what they can include for their next device.

Obviously, people like ourselves realise Apple's tactics, but to the average person who isn't too concerned about technical specifications, it doesn't matter. They see it as it is. It looks better and works faster than its predecessor, and it has cameras which they can use to take snaps of themselves to post on Facebook. That's enough for them.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By ltcommanderdata on 3/9/2011 10:59:03 PM , Rating: 5
Comparing the iPad 2's RAM amount to PCs from 2005 isn't really relevant as it isn't a PC. I'm not talking about Apple's "Post-PC" moniker, rather the practical fact that it isn't running PC software. It is instead running mobile software specifically designed around whatever system requirements/limitations that Apple designs. With no full multitasking where multiple applications are running at the same time, 512MB of RAM for 1 app + the OS seems like plenty. Certainly, the iMovie and Garageband apps are impressive demos of what is possible given iPad 2's hardware. While more would of course be better, I don't see 512MB of RAM being much of a limitation for apps in the next 2 years. Unless of course Apple decides to introduce multi-app simultaneous multitasking in iOS 5.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/2011 11:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that iOS doesn't have true multi-tasking. I own a 3gs iphone and was very disapointed with the implementation. But the web browser does support multi-tabs. As iOS runs now, when it keeps everything in memory even when they are not running in the background. After using iOS with a few different apps, it fills up the memory and when you want to run a different app it has to clear that memory from another app that is in memory to use it.

As for the web browser, it is very easy to fill up the iPad's memory with just a handful of tabs. So when you go to a tab that has been cleared from memory because of the low amounts of available RAM, that tab has to be re-downloaded and redrawn. Not only is this bad because it takes time to download it again instead of it just being in memory, it also uses more of your precious data cap if you are on 3g.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By ltcommanderdata on 3/9/2011 11:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yes webpage reloading is annoying as it happens to me on my 4G iPod Touch which has 256MB of RAM. Going from 256MB to 512MB is doubling, but should be effectively more for applications since I don't see the OS RAM requirement doubling. So applications should have between 2-3 times the effective RAM availability. I'd be curious to hear from iPhone 4 users if 512MB largely solves this problem.

Otherwise since this is largely a browser specific problem, Apple should allow Safari to be able to save the content of the current tabs to flash memory up to a reasonable MB limit. This would address the issue for people with 256MB of RAM too.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/9/2011 11:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Apple should allow Safari to be able to save the content of the current tabs to flash memory up to a reasonable MB limit. This would address the issue for people with 256MB of RAM too. "

That makes way too much sense. I cannot understand why this is not done. I guess that would require some type of pagefile being written onto the device which would decrease the availabe storage by about 1GB.


By ltcommanderdata on 3/9/2011 11:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
A pagefile would be even better because it could be used by all apps, but I think it's something Apple wants to avoid. Whether due to size restraints or that it would encourage lazy developers who don't use hard memory restraints efficiently.

Rather than the complexity of a pagefile, Safari should just save the page within the app. Just like games can save within themselves or iBooks can save downloaded books. This shouldn't require any API changes.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Zok on 3/10/2011 12:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, there's also a hefty power penalty to be paid if you write to flash - compared to RAM. That said, one would think that the trade off is worth it, compared to reloading pages from WiFi or 3G.

Perhaps they are worried about potential security issues? Or they don't want to suck down another ~50-100MB of space from the user, reserved to the system?


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By ABR on 3/10/2011 1:31:54 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is not 512MB, the problem is Safari. Try it next to a Gecko-based browser on your Mac with a dozen tabs or so and you'll see what I mean. Unfortunately both Apple and Google (with Chrome) have been optimizing for the "fast performance by using gobs of memory" route for some time.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By MDGeek on 3/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By sigmatau on 3/10/2011 4:22:59 AM , Rating: 2
Vapor-ware? Has Apple released the iPad 2? Is that vapor-ware too then?

Many websites are claiming an unofficial release date for the Xoom wifi of first week of April. I do wish they had an official release date. Anyways, signs have already been printed so I am guessing it will be released soon.

You can also get a Xoom from Verizon for $200 off ($599) with a 2 year contract. Now that is an incridible deal.

You can't get any deal on the iPad 2 3g with a contract in the US.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By MDGeek on 3/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By MDGeek on 3/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By omnicronx on 3/10/2011 9:07:25 AM , Rating: 2
Any way you put it, the bottom level device of any other tablet is not as cheap the lowest level iPad. Doing so has helped these things fly off the shelves.

While RAM was clearly an issue with the original iPad, I found it more or less to be with multitasking and not browsing.

In the beginning it was bad, but they seemed to have employed some kind of virtual memory scheme for Safari. Maybe a little slow at times, but I've had many tabs open at the same time without issue. Either way, the browsing still seems better than the Galaxy Tab, which has a comparable SOC and more RAM.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By name99 on 3/10/2011 1:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's up with the memory? People use these as web browsers with multiple tabs. 512 MB still seems pretty bad, never mind 256 MB that was on the first iPad. Many netbooks come with 1 GB or more and don't cost as much.


The hypothesis among people who actually know what they are talking about (which excludes about 99.999% of the web) is that it is a power issue, not a cost issue. DRAM is surprisingly power hungry, and so having more of it means taking a (possibly substantial) hit to power. I suspect that Apple's not supporting VM on iOS devices is driven by the same logic --- that while it's trivial technically, and would even perform fast enough, it would burn power.

The fact is that, right now, Apple find themselves in a situation where the best way to conserve power is to offload a ton of work to developers, and force them to have to operate within tight memory constraints. Obviously this sucks for developers, and it occasionally sucks for users; but I can see Apple's point. Android has shown us again and again that if you give developers a way "out of the straitjacket", they will abuse it, to the detriment of battery life; and Apple REALLY cares about battery life.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Alexstarfire on 3/10/2011 3:13:50 PM , Rating: 1
I fail to see how having 1GB of RAM would consumer more power. I presume they'd use 1x1GB module and not 2x512MB modules. 1 module is going to use the same amount of power regardless of how much physical memory it has.


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By name99 on 3/10/2011 6:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
You assume that (for a given RAM technology) the bulk of the power is spent somehow by the packaging (maybe in the pins), NOT by the bulk RAM. So as you say 1GB module would use the same amount of RAM as a .5GB module in the same technology, and with the same number of pins.

I see no reason why this has to be true. What, for example, if most energy is spent internally on self-refresh rather than driven by requests that come in over the pins?

Are you saying this based on actual knowledge, or purely on guesses and hope?
I honestly don't know either way.
The rough info I can find on the web (and I am fully prepared to be corrected) is that
- DRAM takes about 30% of the power in current smartphone type devices
- most of this power is in self-refresh


RE: 512 MB of RAM is so 2005
By Alexstarfire on 3/10/2011 8:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
Based on power requirements for memory modules on desktop computers, and presumably laptops as well.

It's a guess, but a very educated guess. Built-in RAM could very well operate differently from add-on RAM, but I don't know why it would.

I'd like to have a pretty clear picture on this, if possible. If more RAM really does require more power then it really would make more sense to use as little RAM as possible.


By ltcommanderdata on 3/10/2011 2:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/the_ipad_2

quote:
For example, on my original iPad, with 200 on-screen sprites, the framerate dropped to 45 fps. On the iPad 2, with 400 on-screen sprites, the framerate remained at 65 fps. On the iPad 1, Guy’s demo app dropped below 60 fps with about 100 animated sprites; on the iPad 2, it didn’t drop below 60 fps until there were over 750 animated sprites.

So in John Gruber's review of the iPad 2, he worked with Guy English, a developer of Tap Tap Revenge to do a quick test of the iPad 2's GPU relative to the iPad. Now Apple claimed a 9x raw performance increase for the GPU, and testing shows that a 7.5x performance increase is possible on un-optimized code so Apple's estimates seem to be pretty accurate. Now one test isn't exactly a conclusion, but with such a big performance increase, there is no doubt the iPad 2's GPU is much faster than the iPad.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4191/motorola-xoom-r...

A quick comparison to Tegra 2 would be interesting seeing the number of Tegra 2 tablets in bound. Anand's testing on GLBenchmark 2.0 - Egypt gave the Tegra 2 Xoom a score of 12.3 and the original iPad a score of 4.6. Now adjusting for the resolution difference the Xoom is 12.3/(1280x800)=1.20E-5 points/pixel while the iPad is 4.6/(1024x768)=5.85E-6 points/pixel. That makes the Tegra 2 in the Xoom 2.05x as fast as the iPad, compared to the 7.5x the iPad performance that Gruber and Guy English from Tap Tap Revenge found for the iPad 2. Admittedly, these results are not necessarily directly comparable, but given the large performance difference, it's likely the A5 in the iPad 2 is faster than the Tegra 2.




RE: iPad 2 GPU Much Faster Than Tegra 2 Tablets?
By silverblue on 3/10/2011 3:01:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite; the Xoom is processing 30% more pixels which would require you multiplying the difference in scores by 1.3, which would come out as 3.48x as fast (you need to work out the difference in resolution first before multiplying by how many times faster the Xoom is). However, your point would still stand - it wouldn't be anywhere near enough if Apple has a decent enough OpenGL ES implementation.


By ltcommanderdata on 3/10/2011 7:55:40 AM , Rating: 2
I believe I already accounted for resolution by dividing each devices GLBenchmark score by their resolution to obtain a point per pixel measure. On a point per pixel basis the Tegra 2 in the Xoom is 2x faster than the SGX535 in the original iPad.


By munky on 3/10/2011 1:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
No, by dividing the score by the resolution, you're actually giving even more favor to the device with the lower resolution. What if a screen had only 100 pixels? Then by your math it would smoke the competition, even if it had a weaker gpu normalized for the screen size.


By Alexstarfire on 3/10/2011 7:25:56 AM , Rating: 2
That's all well and good for synthetic tests but as we saw with the Galaxy S synthetic tests don't necessarily give the same kind of increase in actual programs.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki