backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by StoveMeister.. on Mar 17 at 5:48 AM

Apple claims that the iPad 3 is "four times faster than Tegra 3"... does that claim hold up?

Apple, Inc. (AAPL), as usual, astounded the world with its latest product launch.  The company who made tablets a hot commodity a week ago pulled the wraps off its third generation tablet.  Featuring a high-definition "Retina" screen from LG Electronics Inc. (KS:066570) and an LTE modem, the new tablet kicked off a crazed frenzy of pre-orders.  

I. Same Results, Different CPU

Apple now has stated it will be out of stock of the popular tablet for several weeks, following the sales of its small-quantity of in-store stock. So what are buyers getting?  Well the first benchmarks have leaked out from Vietnamese forums site Tinhte.vn, and, if accurate, the picture is not as rosy as some fans had hoped.  

Using the Benchmark from GeekBench that measures integer, floating point performance, stream processing, and memory, the tester reveals that the computing power on the unspecified 1.0 GHz ARMv7 instruction set purported A5X dual-core CPU remains unchanged.

GeekBench iPad 3

[Source: Tienhte]

II. Better Graphics

The results would hint that when Apple said that its system-on-a-chip was "four times faster than Tegra 3", it was referring to the graphics processing unit, not the ARM central-processing unit. The GPU core is expected to be a quad-core variant of Kings Langley, UK-based Imagination Technologies Plc's (LON:IMG) PowerVR SGX543MP2, dubbed the SGX543MP4.

The SGX543MP4 is expected to pack a theoretical 134 MPolygon/s and 4 GPixel/s fill rate.  AnandTech's benchmarking of the iPad 2 vs. NVIDIA Corp.'s (NVDA) Tegra in GPU-centric GLBenchmark showed the last generation iPad to be anywhere from 30 to 80 percent faster than Tegra 3 in different benchmarks, versus Apple's claim that it was twice as fast.  Thus it could be expected that the new core in some cases would be 2x as fast as Tegra 3, or perhaps a bit better.

Given that Tegra 3 has a higher clock, perhaps it would be fair to say that to some extent in clock-per-clock Apple's GPU could be close to legitimately delivering 4x performance speed-up vs. Tegra 3, which is quite impressive (but again, the credit here goes first to Imagination Technologies for making the GPU, and second to Apple for securing the stock).

iPad 2 v. Tegra
[Source: Anandtech]

III. Rivals Prepare Counterstrike

NVIDIA is reportedly rushing its Tegra 4 counterpunch to market.  Named "Wayne", in honor of the DC Comics' fictional billionaire Bruce Wayne (aka Batman), NVIDIA's fourth gen. system-on-a-chip will be built on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Comp., Ltd.'s (TPE:2330new 28 nm process.  

Tegra 4 will pack a significantly increased core count and faster clock speeds, but NVIDIA hopes to keep power consumption and die size low, thanks to the die shrink and new circuit technologies.

A modified Tegra 4, code-named "Grey", after the iconic Jean Grey of X-Men fame, is packing an on-die 4G LTE radio from Icera Inc.  The shipping date has been accelerated to an earlier 2012 release, but is unclear whether designs sporting the chips will appear in time for the holidays.

"Grey" will be followed by a chip code-named after her at times flame "Logan" (aka "Wolverine").  Logan will pack a greatly improved GPU, and will launch in 2013.

If not, Apple's main competition will likely be the Qualcomm, Inc.'s (QCOMSnapdragon 4, which is expected to see deep pickup in the smartphone and tablet space, as well as in Windows 8 laptops.  Qualcomm is a close ally of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) who recorded it by making it the exclusive CPU supplier of the Windows Phone platform at launch.

The Qualcomm CPU may prove a threat to Apple's tablet dominance as AnandTech’s described its performance as "insane".

IV. Samsung Truce Could Guarantee Steady Component Supply for iPad 3

AnandTech has published some additional info on the CPU, stating that it's Cortex-A9 MPCore, which indicates that Apple may have purchased an IP core from ARM Technologies Plc. (LON:ARM) and then modified it.  Our sources had previously hinted that the iPad 3 might carry Apple's first in-house designed CPU, but this claim has been difficult to verify due to Apple's extreme secrecy.

Regardless, both AnandTech’s analysis, the GeekBench metrics, and our own sources indicate that while the CPU may be an advance for Apple in terms of internalizing its design, it is hardly a step forward -- let alone a leap forward -- in terms of performance.

The GeekBench benchmark did confirm (as previously leaked by mobile engine developer Epic Games during its iPad 3-related press comments) that the new iPad 3 has 1 GB of RAM -- twice the memory of its predecessor.  That should help keep those hungry graphics GPU cores (which use the DRAM for slow-storage) fed.  

The core -- like the last generation model -- is expected to be printed by Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930) at its Texas facility, a mere miles away from one of Apple's top call centers.  Samsung -- reportedly the sole remaining profitable DRAM supplier -- is also expected to supply the design and process of the on-die DDR2 RAM (memory).  

Samsung Austin Texas
Samsung's CPU supplying plant is located in Austin, Tex. near Texas Instruments and Apple.
[Image Source: Let's Go Digital]

Samsung and Apple are reportedly negotiating and uneasy licensing truce, a testament to their deep mutual dependence from a supplier-client perspective, that runs counter to their heated market competition and legal rivalry [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].

V. The Beefy Battery

According to AnandTech’s math, the iPad 3 would last a mere 6 hours with a 25 watt-hour battery, based on the fact that Apple claims 10 hours of battery life on the new 42.5 watt-hour battery.  The new Apple tablet adds several power hungry components -- an LTE modem, a more intense, higher resolution screen, and the aforementioned higher-core GPU.
 

Apple's iPad 3 is a hungry monster necessitating a fatter battery. [Image Source: Apple]
 

No benchmarks on the LTE performance (surely network dependent) or battery life have been published yet, to our knowledge.  It remains to be seen whether the larger battery delivers better or worse results than Apple's promised 10 hours, in the real world.  

AnandTech founder Anand Shimpi, a veteran iPad user considered the larger battery a necessary evil, but complained, "The new iPad isn't as heavy as the original model, but it's clearly heavier than the iPad 2. I don't believe the added weight is a deal breaker, but it is a step backwards."

VI. LTE -- Fast and Dangerous

In addition to the $130 USD "LTE tax" you'll pay Apple to trade up from Wi-Fi, AnandTech reports that data plans will remain relatively pricey and capped at lower limits -- the highest of which is 5 GB.  The U.S. plans are available from Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD), and AT&T, Inc. (T) -- America's top two wireless carriers in terms of subscribers.

iPad 3 LTE
[Source: Anandtech]

AT&T has the faster network, according to past tests.  However, Verizon Wireless's LTE network covers a much wider geographic range, covering an estimated 200+ million Americans to date.  That range should balloon if Verizon latest big spectrum purchase is given the greenlight by the U.S. Federal Communication Commission.  However, customers on both networks should be wary of hitting their caps and being smacked with fees -- those 10 second app downloads might be a dangerous privilege for some.

On the plus side AnandTech reports that the new tablet is not SIM-locked.  Apple's decision to open up on the SIM side means an easier path to international roaming, as you can just pop in different cards to hop on different subscribed-to networks.

Sources: Tinhte [Vietnamese], AnandTech, AP



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Maybe I'm wrong but...
By VahnTitrio on 3/13/2012 4:07:28 PM , Rating: 3
If all they did in the A5X was double the graphics power, wouldn't it make the 3rd gen iPad slower than an iPad2 as it has 4X as many pixels? Logic tells me that if all else is equal there is no way the new one can perform better...




RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By extra_baggage on 3/13/2012 4:29:22 PM , Rating: 1
You are forgetting the increased ram!


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By B3an on 3/13/2012 4:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
More RAM will not magically make it perform better, it will just help compensate for the extra pixels it has to push.

At native resolution games should actually run slower than the iPad 2.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By tayb on 3/13/2012 6:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Except that games don't scale that way. As an example from a recent Anand article (pasted below) scaling from 1680x1050 to 2560x1600 resulted in a 61.75% drop in FPS but the increase in pixels was 132.20%. The "new iPad" is pushing 4 times as many pixels as the iPad 2 but that does not mean you should expect 1/4 of the performance. They have also doubled the theoretical performance of the GPU, may have increased the CPU speed, could have optimized the software, and might have doubled the amount of RAM. This is a "we won't know until we know" kind of thing.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5625/amd-radeon-hd-7...


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By snorldown on 3/13/2012 7:33:44 PM , Rating: 4
Your example just reinforces B3an's point. Assuming performance scales linearly with the number of pixels, a 132% increase in the pixel count would result in a 57% drop in FPS, so the fact that the benchmark showed a 61.75% drop means that the scaling was even worse.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 2:49:31 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry but tayb is correct, he just used a bad example.

Take the same link of his.

Look at the HD 7950 (only selected because it's the first one on the list). At 1920 x 1200, it achieves an FPS of 47.1

Now, lets look at the result for 2560 x 1600. This is a move from 2304000 pixels to 4096000 pixels. This represents 1.78x as many pixels. As a result, if performance scales linearly, we would expect an FPS of 47.1/1.78, which is 26.46.

Instead, we see an FPS of 31.1.

Proof, by counter example, that FPS does not necessarily scale linearly with number of pixels. This also proves that 4x the pixels does not necessarily mean 1/4 of the FPS. Which was tayb's original point.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 2:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
Edit: Sorry the 47.1 figure I quoted is actually 47.7 on the graph.

The point still stands though, 47.7/1.78 is 26.8 FPS (rather than the 26.46). Still less than the 31.1 (14% less) and still proves the point.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By theapparition on 3/14/2012 9:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
Despite your horrendous position on benchmarking in the previous article, I do agree with you that benchmarks don't scale linearly with resolution.

There's a whole system that is in place that needs to be considered, including the amount of graphics ram, it's speed, and it's data path to the CPU.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By therealnickdanger on 3/14/2012 11:28:16 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, but did Apple claim "4X GPU performance" at the native resolution? I don't remember that being the direct claim. Seems like fanboys are getting their collective panties in a bunch over very little. They seem to forget that rendered resolution and displayed resolution are not always equal. Most Xbox/PS3 games are rendered at 720p (or lower in some cases) but that doesn't prevent the console or the display from scaling it up to 1080p.

Will the iPad 3 GPU be 4X faster than a 800p Tegra 3 device at native resolution? Likely not. Will it be 4X faster at a common resolution like 1024x768? It's possible.


By therealnickdanger on 3/15/2012 1:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
And the results are in. Compare:
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/glbench_macworl...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5163/asus-eee-pad-tr...

Tegra 3
GL Egypt Offscreen 720p: 64fps
GL Pro Offscreen 720p: 78fps

iPad 3
GL Egypt Offscreen 720p: 140fps (2.2X faster)
GL Pro Offscreen 720p: 241fps (3.1X faster)

So it's not literally 4X faster, at least in this benchmark, but it is the very reason words like "pwnd" exist.

That being said, I'm very happy with my Acer Iconia A100.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By retrospooty on 3/14/2012 11:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
"Despite your horrendous position on benchmarking in the previous article, I do agree with you that benchmarks don't scale linearly with resolution."

That is because the fanboy's perspective will change when it benefits Apple's viewpoint. On this particular subject, the concept that performance doesn't scale linear with res. benefits Apple, so the fanboy takes that tact. It just happens to be correct in this particular subject.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 2:45:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That is because the fanboy's perspective will change when it benefits Apple's viewpoint. On this particular subject, the concept that performance doesn't scale linear with res. benefits Apple, so the fanboy takes that tact. It just happens to be correct in this particular subject.


Clueless hate comment fuelled by bitterness. If you actually read my former stances on benchmarks, it's ALWAYS been that they have to be compared on equal resolutions. The exact same point I've made here. It's common knowledge, and a well followed principle that when benchmarking GPU's, you use the same resolution. That is what I was stating in the previous article. If you disagree with that obvious reality, take it up with Anandtech or any other true tech site who always benchmark that way.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By retrospooty on 3/15/2012 10:14:18 AM , Rating: 2
"Clueless hate comment fuelled by bitterness."

??? huh

Again, reading comprehension is a problem for you. I do agree, and said you are correct above with regards to benchmarks.

What I am also saying is that you always side with Apple, that is your sole purpose here and that is all you comment on. You are here on an agenda. With regards to benchmarks, lets say the tables were turned and the current benchmarks were not favoring Apple. your stance WOULD change or you would simply not comment at all.

When all you do is post in Apple articles, attack anyone that has anything negative to say about Apple, and come down on Apple's side 100% of the time no matter what the issue is, people dont take you seriously. Flake off now fanboy.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By B3an on 3/13/2012 8:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
CPU speed is the same @ 1GHz. And as i said, more RAM will not make games run better! Unless games are limited by not enough RAM, which no iPAd games are being as all the developers know exactly how much RAM they have to work with.

Another example would be that i have 32GB RAM in my PC, but taking much of it out and just leaving 6GB does not make games run any worse (apart from slightly longer loading screens), being as no PC game uses more than 4GB. Adding more RAM when it's not going to be used will not increase FPS.

If anything, games that decide to use the extra RAM in the iPad 3 will see even more of a performance hit from the higher res textures used and so on. Or all that extra RAM could easily be used up from just enabling AA, which needs a lot of RAM for that res, which again will see a performance hit. The iPad 3 will not run games better at native res with just these GPU changes.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By reginhild2 on 3/14/2012 3:01:40 PM , Rating: 3
Good example. The geekbench number above is interesting as the Tegra 3 in the Transformer Prime kicks it to the curb.

The first independent benchmark comparison test is out and the Tegra 3 CPU is over 2x faster than the CPU in the iPad 3:

http://www.tech-vs-tech.com/the-new-ipad-vs-transf...


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By quiksilvr on 3/13/2012 9:05:56 PM , Rating: 1
One thing worth mentioning:

Those Tegra 3 benchmarks were taken BEFORE ICS. Those are Honeycomb benchmarks.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By MrMilli on 3/14/2012 8:53:09 AM , Rating: 3
Those numbers only relate to how the HD 7950 scales but that doesn't mean this kind of a scaling just transfers to the A5X. As a matter of a fact I can assure you that it doesn't.
That a videocard with 240GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth and 25.6 GPixel/s fill rate can take a punch, we all know. But the A5X with it's around 5-6GB/s shared memory bandwidth and 4GPixel/s fill rate (PowerVR: All fill rate figures stated assuming a scene depth complexity of x2.5. That means the actual fill rate is 1.6GPixel/s) will have a much harder time with this 4x increase in pixel count.
My guess is that the performance drop will be even worse than linear because of the many bottlenecks.
So as stated, the performance of games on the new iPad will be worse than the iPad 2 on their respective native resolutions.
To fight this effect, developers won't run 3D games at 2048x1536 but will keep the engine running at 1024x768 internally. They will apply the (almost free) 2xAA and then scale the output to 2048x1536 (just the like a XBOX360 would run FullHD).


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By messele on 3/13/2012 4:55:04 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget that many graphics functions in 3D graphics at the vector calculation stage require the same compute time regardless of the screen size, it's only later in the frame build that calculations are directly affected by the number of pixels present. It may be that this stage has been redesigned to give the extra power needed.

The topic is way too complicated to assume that one aspect of the processors design tells the story of another aspect. I think it's way too early to draw any conclusions at all.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By michael2k on 3/13/2012 5:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
But even so it will be faster than a Tegra 3...


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By Dribble on 3/14/2012 5:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
With half the processors running at lower clock speeds? It won't be faster then tegra 3 in any cpu bound tasks, which is most of them.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 7:03:00 AM , Rating: 3
Most tasks aren't CPU bound - certainly not those which require great performance (eg Games).

iOS is hardware accelerated so it benefits from the better GPU just about everywhere.

Every day tasks like browsing the internet, watching movies, viewing photos, sending emails, don't require a great amount of CPU power, any increase in the speed of CPU above that of the iPad would result in an imperceptible speed difference, since the much larger delay is, for example, in waiting for the page to download. Animations, switching between apps, slide-interfaces, multi-touch pinch/zoom is mostly handled by the GPU and that's where you need the grunt.

It's very rare to find an Android tablet, even ones which have a 'faster' CPU, which feel as smooth as the iPad range.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By theapparition on 3/14/2012 9:31:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's very rare to find an Android tablet, even ones which have a 'faster' CPU, which feel as smooth as the iPad range.

Maybe because none of them had hardware accelerated UI, until ICS.

Take a look at reviews on ICS on tablets and you'll see how improved it is.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By Dribble on 3/14/2012 10:05:38 AM , Rating: 2
I bet when the iPad 4 or whatever they call it comes out with some uber A15 based cpu (much faster) then apple (and you!) will be telling us all how important the cpu is.

If that's not true then whey are they bothering to develop A15 based cpu's - why not just stick with having a couple of A9's @ 1ghz for ever?


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By michael2k on 3/14/2012 1:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Because they are simultaneously working on iOS6 and iOS7?


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By MrMilli on 3/15/2012 5:59:49 AM , Rating: 3
That's what i've been saying for years. Apple tells people what's important and people just repeat after them. It's pretty amazing.
In this case, how's cpu power not important? I would say that anything and everything is short on cpu power. Even a Core i7 that's >10x faster than a Cortex A9 is still not fast enough. The day when every task happens instantaneous then you're allowed to say that the cpu is fast enough.
Apple applied the same strategy in the past with the lack of multitasking, lack of good camera, ...
Apple always manages to convince people that when they introduce it, is the right time. Nothing short of amazing.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 5:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's okay though because the iPad's 2 graphics power was about double what it needed to be. Frankly it was overkill for the apps/pixels it was pushing. So the iPad3 will be just fine on the graphics.


RE: Maybe I'm wrong but...
By Smilin on 3/13/2012 8:53:37 PM , Rating: 3
For 2d raster graphics, yes. But there is so much leftover horsepower that it's not an issue under those circumstances.

For 3d graphics 4x pixels doesn't translate directly into 4x workload.


Correct me if I am wrong...
By messele on 3/13/2012 3:46:43 PM , Rating: 3
When Apple referred to the A5X having 4x the power of the Tegra 3, they were plainly talking about graphics performance and the Keynote slide on the screen specifically stated it was for graphics performance so you can't pretend to have gone through some amazing investigation only to conclude that they "must be talking about GPU not CPU" when you already knew the facts (or should have).

Also, the comparison was between the A5X and Tegra 3, NOT between the iPad 3rd gen and Transformer Prime. Why is that significant? Well when two competing products are compared they are always compared clock-for-clock to provide a baseline for comparison. In this case the Tegra already has a 1.3x clock advantage so everything must be scaled back. Yes that is not the case when comparing the two end products but the claim was not about the two end products, only the silicon.

The fact that the A5 is already so far advanced should have been a big clue in all of this, so I think all the waffle making the article look like a big investigation is a bit of a joke.




RE: Correct me if I am wrong...
By nafhan on 3/13/2012 4:12:24 PM , Rating: 3
Agree with your first paragraph (pretty clear Apple was talking GPU's), but your second paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't benchmark silicon. You can only compare the implementations of the silicon. In this case, Tegra 3 is shipping with 1.3-1.4Ghz clock speed. So, it absolutely makes sense to compare it at that speed - UNLESS there is good reason to believe that 1.3Ghz will be atypical for the Tegra 3. I don't think that's the case, though.


RE: Correct me if I am wrong...
By messele on 3/13/2012 4:46:33 PM , Rating: 3
Apple compared processors, not end products. If the Prime was a 1GHz machine it would be fair to compare the silicon as it's used in the end product.

Why do you think the graphics benchmarks are standardised at 720p drawn to a frame buffer (i.e. not to screen)?


RE: Correct me if I am wrong...
By Camikazi on 3/13/2012 5:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
You can't gimp a GPU just to prove another is 4 times better, you test GPU at shipping specs against each other. Just look around, you will rarely see CPU or even GPU comparisons at the same speeds, they test them at shipping specs to see how they perform. If Apple was thinking of a clocked down Tegra then they were just BSing trying to make themselves looks better then they actually are.


RE: Correct me if I am wrong...
By retrospooty on 3/14/2012 7:34:33 AM , Rating: 3
"You can't gimp a GPU just to prove another is 4 times better, you test GPU at shipping specs against each other. "

You cant expect Apple fanboys to A) understand anything about properly benchmarking or B) Not skew things toward Apple.

"If Apple was thinking of a clocked down Tegra then they were just BSing trying to make themselves looks better then they actually are."

Yes, Apple has a LONG history of that type of deceitful behavior. Remeber when they claimed that their powerPC architecture way way faster than Intels chips? They would release benchmarks that showed a few particular types of tests that showed them in a good light. Then when tested fully it wasnt true. When tested in the exact same light, it was later found that Apple purposely used an old down level compiler for the Intel tests that croppled its speed. Straight up lies. They continued this crap until the day they announced they went with Intel chips.

"Our chips are better , faster and far superior..." Until they switched, then Intels chips were better faster and far superior. Apple is a lying sack of crap now, and has always been.


RE: Correct me if I am wrong...
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 5:19:46 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think anything is being 'gimped' here. The claims Apple made are not, I believe, clock-for-clock.

They are a comparison of shipped frequency, running the Tegra 3 at it's normal and native speed.

Numerous tests performed by Anandtech have shown that the GPU in the iPad 2 is at least 180% the speed of the Tegra 3 in some benchmarks, meaning the new iPad should hit at least 360% of the performance at its native speed.

To try and belittle a GPU which is over 3x faster, sometimes more, than the Tegra 3, is beyond weak, the recourse of the Android fanboy.


RE: Correct me if I am wrong...
By nafhan on 3/13/2012 5:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
Slowing down the Nvidia chip in order to benchmark would show you how the A5X does against an Nvidia chip that doesn't exist. You may learn something about the chip architecture, etc., but from an end user perspective, it would be pointless.
quote:
Why do you think the graphics benchmarks are standardised at 720p drawn to a frame buffer (i.e. not to screen)?
This is pretty different as the chips themselves are all being asked to perform the same tasks - screen resolution is just being removed from the equation. It's also a little bit more useful as many tablets have TV out capabilities. For most end users, it's still not very helpful, and most GPU benchmarks (for tablets) are run at the tablets native resolution.


By theapparition on 3/14/2012 9:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
Can you please point me towards one respectable benchmark that "gimped" a Pentium review to compete with a much lower clocked Athlon from years ago.

They may have done a few to gauge architecture differences, but comparisons were always done on a latest product vs latest product basis.


RE: Correct me if I am wrong...
By Sazabi19 on 3/13/2012 4:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think the iPad3(?) and Prime were compared because the iPad3(?) has the A5X (I think) and the Prime is the only tablet (or anything that I know of) that is using the Tegra 3.


Apple: Marketing over substance.
By dark matter on 3/13/2012 4:18:34 PM , Rating: 5
If I said my car was 4 times faster than your car. You would expect it to be 4 times faster. Not just on the corners, and to actually be 4 times faster.

Perhaps Apple also have a patent on bullshit. Sure looks like it to me.




By smackababy on 3/13/2012 4:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
If they do have that patent, they better start suing every other company in the world. "Best performance in class" (of the most obscure class we can think of so we only compete against a very inferior product)...

I am sure in one of Apple's synthetic benchmarks, it was 4x as fast as the Tegra 3. They stated a fact.


RE: Apple: Marketing over substance.
By tayb on 3/13/2012 6:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think you should sue them.


By foolsgambit11 on 3/13/2012 7:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, the US Government rejected their patent application, citing the US Government as prior art.


RE: Apple: Marketing over substance.
By Solandri on 3/13/2012 9:03:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If I said my car was 4 times faster than your car. You would expect it to be 4 times faster. Not just on the corners, and to actually be 4 times faster.

It's standard marketing drivel. "Sale! Up to 90% off!" when the average discount is 5% and they have a candy cane marked down from $1 to 10 cents. Apple is very, very good at it (better than Microsoft). Like releasing the iPhone 4 just as 4G service was rolling out, causing many buyers to mistakenly think they the iPhone had 4G. Deceptive, but true. How to lie without lying. In other words, normal marketing.

The actual message here is that at one unspecified graphics benchmark, the A5X scored 4x higher than Tegra 3. But the slick way it was presented, the message most people will (incorrectly) remember is that the iPad 3 has a CPU 4x faster than the top competitor.

Personally, I think advertisers should be prohibited from citing a maximum without a minimum, or should have to cite an average. e.g. "128 kbps - 4.5 Mbps internet speeds!" or "average 1.5 Mbps internet speeds". Capitalism works best when buyers are making informed rational choices, so deceptive marketing actually hurts the free market.


By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2012 9:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Capitalism works best when buyers are making informed rational choices, so deceptive marketing actually hurts the free market.


It's pretty easy to inform oneself these days about something. There's really no excuse for just taking the word of a company and not doing a minimum of homework first.

quote:
Personally, I think advertisers should be prohibited from citing a maximum without a minimum


Prohibited how? There's a fine line between fraud and freedom of speech. I fear you would cross that and ruin many industries entirely. How would that help the free market? No thank you, we have enough problems with the government inserting themselves into everything without them coming up with strict advertising guidelines.

Does a Monster Cable truly offer the end user a better experience over a budget cable? Probably not. But it's still their right to sell it and claim it does.


By testerguy on 3/14/2012 3:16:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If I said my car was 4 times faster than your car. You would expect it to be 4 times faster. Not just on the corners, and to actually be 4 times faster. Perhaps Apple also have a patent on bullshit. Sure looks like it to me.


I'll come back to why this comment is fundamentally wrong a little bit later, but first:

Look at it like this. Lets say both the iPad and Tegra 3 are cars. The 'retina display' of the iPad can obviously hold back performance when compared to the poor resolution of all Tegra 3 tablets (relatively speaking). In car terms, this is the equivalent of the car being bigger and heavier. The advantage, is that what you see is much higher quality. In car terms, this is the equivalent of being able to carry more passengers (or more luggage)

In this comparison, the iPad car has 2 modes. It has mode 1, where you are carrying all the passengers and all the additional weight, to the benefit of the user. Obviously in this case, it isn't capable of travelling 4x faster, but it is capable of carrying passengers that the Tegra 3 isn't.

However, it ALSO has a second mode, where you strip out all of the back seats, lose all of the additional weight, and effectively end up at the same weight or less than the Tegra 3 car. You lose the ability to take extra passengers, but you gain the extra speed and can actually drive at the claimed 4x faster.

To explain this - the new iPad has the capability to render games at the lower resolution of 1024 x 768, and then upscale them to the screens native resolution. This means that if the developers want, they can push games at 2x the speed of the iPad 2 on the new iPad. Which is 4x the speed of Tegra 3. The developers also have a choice, if they want, to use the higher resolution. The choice they have means that they can optimise the game they are working on, depending on what it needs in graphics terms, and can always ensure that the FPS is perfect. The same choice does not exist for Tegra 3 developers, who don't even have the option to match the resolution of the iPad, and certainly can't match the graphics power at any resolution.

Which brings me to my next point - which is that given any certain resolution, the iPad GPU will deliver performance up to 4x faster than Tegra 3. Perhaps future Tegra 3 tablets will catch up with the iPad resolution or even exceed it, which will exacerbate this point. Remember, Tegra 3 is not a tablet, so it doesn't have a specific resolution.

Finally, and coming back to my first sentence, Apple never claimed that the 'car' is 4x faster. They claimed that the ENGINE is 4x more powerful. The 'power' of graphics cards happens to be measured in 'speed' in casual terms, and all comparisons of the 'speed' of different GPU's are carried out using benchmarks at the same resolutions and same settings. So their claim is perfectly valid.


OH NO!
By wiz220 on 3/13/2012 3:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NVIDIA hopes to keep power consumption and die size slow


You can't be giving pirks and tony low hanging fruit like that! ;)




RE: OH NO!
By Sazabi19 on 3/13/2012 3:36:26 PM , Rating: 5
In all honesty Pirks has been getting much better and it seems possibly even an open mind about certain things lately. Tony on the other hand is in a downward spiral. I think I heard a rumor that he heats applesauce on a spoon and injects it...


RE: OH NO!
By Smilin on 3/13/2012 8:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed on both points.


RE: OH NO!
By Tony Swash on 3/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: OH NO!
By Smilin on 3/13/2012 8:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be interested to see where the ratings go on your post. It wasn't fanboyish or stupid so for most it would remain a two. If it goes down your welcome may have too.


RE: OH NO!
By StormyKnight on 3/14/2012 2:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
He was talking about dried up apple, not Steve Jobs' ashes...


RE: OH NO!
By CBeck113 on 3/14/2012 11:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
...and what's the difference?


RE: OH NO!
By retrospooty on 3/14/2012 11:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
One is a fruit, and the other is a nut =)


How are they getting this done?
By mytakeismine on 3/13/2012 5:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
How is it that with more graphics, 4G and LTE that you can get 10 hrs of battery? I didn't hear the mAh of the new battery but doesn't that screen use more power too, any chance there was a shrink involved, yes / no?




RE: How are they getting this done?
By ilt24 on 3/13/2012 5:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't hear the mAh of the new battery


The battery in the new ipad is 42Whr vs 25Whr on the ipad 2.


RE: How are they getting this done?
By Smilin on 3/13/2012 8:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't looked at the weight yet but the previous iPads are pretty heavy. It's good enough for laptop surfing. If you have to hold the thing to read a book you'll quickly go back to laptop surfing so you can order a kindle from amazon.


By nikon133 on 3/13/2012 11:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
True enough... I found even Nook Colour a bit to heavy for reading. Tried iPad and Transformer and went back to Sony PRS-T1.

Happy as Larry.


There is something wrong here....
By jnemesh on 3/13/2012 6:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you have to get into this detailed of a technical discussion to prove your shiny new toy is really better than last years version...

Bottom line...iPad 2 + 512Kb RAM + LTE + enhanced GPU + fancy screen = new iPad.

End users will notice the fancy screen and not much else.




RE: There is something wrong here....
By nurbsenvi2 on 3/13/2012 8:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Fancy screen?

not really

have you actually tried using tablets in portrait mode?
it's useless because of the low resolution.

Retina display is not just fancy screen
it actually is useful


By Smilin on 3/13/2012 8:44:38 PM , Rating: 1
Yep. I have. Even the fire works fine in portrait.

Retina displays work great but they are full of hype. Just being an IPS display is enough for a tablet (mind you I would take OLED at a lower resolution any day)

If apple sold a speaker that produced a frequency range reaching that of a dog whistle which you can't hear would you drool about it? WTF is the point of having a pixel density beyond what you can see? (but it's different, that analogy doesn't work whispers the RDF..pss pss psss) Seriously digest that for a moment with clear and logical thinking. (no..pss pss..don't listen to him says the RDF.psst) There is such a thing as "good enough" and beyond is pointless.

My guess: They are after the resolution, not the pixel density. The marketting guys just ran with it. It makes it easier to write software that will be compatible with future screens that are larger. Same reasoning with the iPhone 4...shares resolution with a larger screen.


By testerguy on 3/14/2012 5:34:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bottom line...iPad 2 + 512Kb RAM + LTE + enhanced GPU + fancy screen = new iPad.


You forgot the improved camera, and that they managed to do all of the above whilst maintaining the same battery life (with a massively increased battery). I don't know why you think a 'detailed technical discussion' is required? I think everybody who hasn't has this discussion knows the GPU is faster, the screen is higher resolution, the battery life is better, the app library is much bigger, the reliability is better, and the software support is much longer.

Shall we compare the iterative versions of the Galaxy Tab or Asus Prime and see how much they evolve in a generation?

Did they double graphics performance, quadruple screen resolution, double RAM, upgrade camera, all without sacrificing battery life, between generations? No. And there's really no excuse why they didn't either, their devices are starting from a slower point.


Hmm
By Jahooba on 3/13/2012 10:18:18 PM , Rating: 3
Is that a gig of system RAM, or a gig of video RAM? Is there a difference when it comes to the iPad?




Qualcomm
By KPOM1 on 3/13/2012 7:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
If the forthcoming Qualcomm CPU is "insanely fast," could Apple use it in a future iPad (particularly if the negotiations with Samsung don't go well), or did Microsoft get an exclusive arrangement?

It also remains to be seen just how efficiently Windows on ARM will actually run. Android tablets generally have faster CPUs than Apple, but Android is less efficient than iOS.




Pointing out the bias
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 3:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AnandTech's benchmarking of the iPad 2 vs. NVIDIA Corp.'s (NVDA) Tegra in GPU-centric GLBenchmark showed the last generation iPad to be anywhere from 30 to 80 percent faster than Tegra 3 in different benchmarks, versus Apple's claim that it was twice as fast. Thus it could be expected that the new core in some cases would be 2x as fast as Tegra 3, or perhaps a bit better.


Lets first be clear that the benchmarks showing that the iPad 2 GPU are 31%* to 81%* faster than Tegra 3 corresponds to 131% and 181% of the performance respectively. Not far off at the top end of Apples required claim of 200%, and we don't know what resolution or benchmark Apple was referring to, so it's very possible they are correct in certain circumstances.

Thus, you could expect a device which is 2x as fast as the iPad 2 (ie, the new iPad) to have performance ranging from 262% to 362% faster. This is not equivalent to 'some cases' being '2x' as fast.

It's the equivalent of it being MORE than 2x as fast in EVERY scenario, and up to 3.6x as fast in some. This is not the same as how you portray it.

The various parts where you give credit 'not to Apple' but to manufacturers (eg LG) is also ridiculous. It's like saying BMW doesn't deserve any credit for their cars because they order parts from suppliers. Guess what - the suppliers build what they are asked to build.




who makes the display?
By hexxthalion on 3/14/2012 7:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting you mention that the new iPad uses LG panel, there were few articles yesterday claiming that the new iPad uses Samsung's panels.

I guess we'll have to wait for iFixit to take it apart - not that I care, but still would be interesting to see.

On the other note, AU Optronics has been found guilty in price fixing - shame on them




Horrible Bench
By seraphim1982 on 3/14/2012 8:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
They Benched the TF Prime with Android 3.2 and not the newest 4.0 version.
Its like comparing an IPAD3 with a much older OS.




By reginhild2 on 3/14/2012 3:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
The first independent benchmark comparison test is out and the Tegra 3 CPU is over 2x faster than the CPU in the iPad 3:

http://www.tech-vs-tech.com/the-new-ipad-vs-transf...




By reginhild2 on 3/14/2012 3:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
The first independent benchmark comparison test is out and the Tegra 3 CPU is over 2x faster than the CPU in the iPad 3:

http://www.tech-vs-tech.com/the-new-ipad-vs-transf...




This is pathetic
By name99 on 3/14/2012 4:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(but again, the credit here goes first to Imagination Technologies for making the GPU, and second to Apple for securing the stock).


Really? This is where DailyTech is headed now? Apple products suck because APPLE didn't manufacture the screen, and the CPU, and the GPU, and the RAM, and flash storage, and the cellular and wifi basebands?

Give me a freaking break. An adult would own up to an error and just admit that they were wrong with all the pre-iPad3 nay-saying.




Oh noes!!! The new iPad is doomed to fail!!!
By jmhart on 3/13/12, Rating: -1
By nurbsenvi2 on 3/14/2012 12:18:27 AM , Rating: 1
Dailytech is sooo anti-apple

so damn stupid

if it wasn't for apple we wouldn't have the properly useful smart phones and tablets... tsk tsk tsk

Grow the F up.


I will get one
By extra_baggage on 3/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: I will get one
By 225commander on 3/13/2012 5:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
sounds like you already have your plan in place to lighten your wallet and add some...extra_baggage!


RE: I will get one
By MechanicalTechie on 3/13/2012 6:50:59 PM , Rating: 1
Muppet!

I have some x-ray glasses if you want to buy them too!


RE: I will get one
By StevoLincolnite on 3/13/2012 10:36:34 PM , Rating: 3
Explains the Op rather perfectly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

To the Op. Do some research. Unless you have used and researched every alternative to the iPad/iPhone then you cannot claim they are the best, just uninformed.

You are a perfect example of someone who has fallen for the marketing from Apple and It's worshipers.


RE: I will get one
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 3:43:38 AM , Rating: 1
It's fair to say that it's the consensus amongst impartial review sites and industry experts that the iPad is the most capable tablet delivering the best user experience right now.

Whether this guy has tried all tablets or not, he can still have researched thoroughly and come to a logical conclusion.

The reverse of what you say is true, people who fall for the 'open source' claims of Google, believing it offers them anything other than a large security hole, or falling for the reduced prices which Android devices have to be sold at, believing that if the gHz is higher than the performance will be. Many people who buy Android tablets (there aren't many of them) have never tried the iPad either because they don't want to get the 'popular device'. Ironically, for some people like that it's more about image than for people who buy Apple products. Looking around tech sites like this it's plain to see far more Android fanatics than Apple fanatics.


Do arcane spec facts matter?
By Tony Swash on 3/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Do arcane spec facts matter?
By jmhart on 3/13/2012 10:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
Specs only really matter to a tiny minority of the population who are more worried about benchmarks and specs than how the product performs in the real world. This minority just can't get their head around the fact that Apple sells a superior experience, despite the specs and benchmarks. You would think they would have realized by now that efficiency and intelligent design trump throwing hardware at inefficient software.

I mean, I like reading specs as much as the next guy but I've been around gadgetry log enough to know that specs are never the whole story.


By StoveMeister on 3/17/2012 5:48:48 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with your entire post, except for one little thing.
The Subject: "Do arcane spec facts matter?"
Yeah- they do, when Apple were the ones claiming them. If they had marketed it as all of the things you said, I for one would be fine with it. Unsubstantiated claims of myriad multiples of improvement over all the competition smack of an IT company run by marketing not engineering.


No new information
By tayb on 3/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: No new information
By TSS on 3/13/2012 5:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh cmon now. It has some nice graphs of how fast something visual runs on the Ipad 2 if you don't use the screen.

That has to count for something. Right?


RE: No new information
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 5:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
There is a reason off-screen benchmarks are used.

It's

a) To put the devices at the same resolution (the only way to compare GPU to GPU)

b) Because on-screen benchmarks are restricted by V-sync to 60 fps by the iPad (and iPhone).

Thus the off-screen benchmarks are the most (and only) representative metrics when benchmarking GPU's.


RE: No new information
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2012 9:42:54 AM , Rating: 1
In other words, bullshit.


RE: No new information
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 2:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
In other words, you're clueless.

quote:
The 960 x 640 results are useless as they are bound by vsync at ~60 fps. Luckly GLBenchmark 2.1 added an off-screen render mode at 1280 x 720 where we can really see the differences between the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S A5 implementations:


http://www.anandtech.com/show/4971/apple-iphone-4s...


RE: No new information
RE: No new information
By Smilin on 3/13/2012 8:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
"killing a horse to death with another dead horse."

LOL tayb. I'm totally going to steal that.


RE: No new information
By BSMonitor on 3/14/2012 9:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
Then it comes flying through your kitchen window to land on the table... Damn it Mort!


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki