backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Feb 26 at 8:03 PM


iPad 3 leaked photos  (Source: BGR.com)

  (Source: MacRumors.com)

  (Source: MacRumors.com)
Apple's iPad 3 will sport a 2048x1536 display, A5X chip system and 8 MP camera

The upcoming iPad 3 has been a main topic for discussion recently after learning that Apple is set to present it at an event during the first week of March. While the rumor mill has been working overtime, a few reports were able to get hands-on with some actual iPad 3 parts, confirming recent speculations like higher resolution and an upgraded chip system.

The iPad 3 is expected to look very similar to the iPad 2, with the same 9.7-inch screen and shape. However, the iPad 3's higher resolution seems to be the hot topic related to the new device, setting it apart from its predecessor.

According to Mac Rumors, which managed to get its hands on an actual iPad 3 display, the rumors regarding the resolution are indeed true. It will offer a 2048x1536 display, compared to the iPad and iPad 2's 1024x768 displays. By placing the displays of an iPad 2 and iPad 3 under a microscope, Mac Rumors was able to highlights clusters of 4 pixels from the iPad 2 and clusters of 16 pixels from the iPad 3.

Mac Rumors was also able to obtain the iPad 3's logic board, which offered a pair of 16 GB flash memory chips from Hynix, an upgraded power management chip and an upgraded package on package system-on-a-chip.

With the iPad and iPhone carrying A4 chip systems and the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S carrying A5 chip systems, many expected the iPad 3 to obtain an upgraded A6. However, it has been discovered that the chip system for the iPad 3 is an upgraded chip called "A5X." Its data code shows that it was manufactured in November 2011.

In addition to a resolution and chip system upgrade, the iPad 3 will sport a camera with 8 megapixels, as rumored before. Apple Daily, a Chinese publication, published photos of a complete iPad 3, which showed a device that resembles how reports have described it.

The iPad 3 will also have 4G LTE connectivity, and run on Verizon and AT&T's LTE networks. It's currently unknown if Sprint or T-Mobile will sell the new iPad. An 8-inch iPad is also in the making.

The iPad 3 will make its big debut during the first week of March in San Francisco, California.

Sources: MacRumors, MacRumors, BGR



Comments     Threshold


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

Screen resolution
By vectorm12 on 2/20/2012 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 4
If the quoted resolution is true for the iPad3 the manufacturers need to get off their asses and produce desktop LCDs with comparable pixel densities.

I'm honestly sick of 27-30" displays being stuck at 2560x1440/1600. If it's possible to produce such small panels with that high pixel density it should be more than resonable to produce a 24-27" inch display with the same density.




RE: Screen resolution
By EnzoFX on 2/20/2012 9:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
No, the bigger the size the lower the yields would be at that density. Also, only recent gpu's would be able to handle that Res.


RE: Screen resolution
By B3an on 2/20/2012 10:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
4K TV's and monitors are coming. Didn't any of you see CES this year? AMD also had a demo on a 4K monitor showing off the 7970.

"4K" is around 4096 x 2160. But it will obviously be massively expensive at first.

I currently have 2x 2560x1600 30" monitors and i'd like higher res AND larger monitors. A couple of 30" 4K monitor would be amazing, or maybe just a single 40", the pixel density should still be smaller even at that size.


RE: Screen resolution
By Shadowself on 2/20/2012 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"4K" is around 4096 x 2160.


Actually the 4K Digital Cinema Standard *is* 4096 x 2160 exactly.

There have been several monitor makers that have claimed "4K" and not been to the standard -- the most common is 3840 x 2160 (or 2 x 1920 by 2 x 1080). How anyone really thinks 3840 is "4K" I don't know, but the press seems to be letting them get away with it.


RE: Screen resolution
By AntDX316 on 2/21/2012 5:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
2048x1536 is INSANE


RE: Screen resolution
By 440sixpack on 2/20/2012 9:55:22 AM , Rating: 3
Seconded - resolution is so key, and I can't stand the backward movement we've had the last few years as displays went from 4:3 to 16:10 to 16:9, losing vertical pixels every time. Of course I suppose larger screens with such high density would be much more expensive, but best get the process going now so the natural decline in prices that occur over time can get started.


RE: Screen resolution
By StevoLincolnite on 2/20/2012 1:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
Worried about vertical pixels... Here I am running 5760x1080 Eyefinity resolution, happily enough.

Personally, I just want more pixels, verticle or horizontal, I couldn't care. I can always use more real estate.

It seems though that there is a large demand for resolutions greater than 1080p, makes you wonder why companies dont target that market more aggressively?


RE: Screen resolution
By Shig on 2/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: Screen resolution
By tayb on 2/20/2012 10:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but it's the amount of crap you can fit on the screen vertically that is huge for me. 1920x1080 is frustrating. Having an extra 500 vertical pixels would be amazing.


RE: Screen resolution
By mead drinker on 2/20/2012 4:15:16 PM , Rating: 3
Just add another 1920x1200 screen to the side. Nature and human existence occur in horizontal planes anyway, why fight it?


RE: Screen resolution
By bug77 on 2/20/2012 10:03:06 AM , Rating: 4
You're not looking at a 27" display from the same distance you look at a tablet, so that density will only be wasted. Also, for a desktop you'll need a video card able to push that resolution in 3D. Most cards today can't push 2560x1440 with 16xAA and 16xAF - not an issue for tables, but pretty much a given for desktops.

quote:
If it's possible to produce such small panels with that high pixel density it should be more than reasonable to produce a 24-27" inch display with the same density.


Besides being false, this statement also lacks in the logic department.


RE: Screen resolution
By tayb on 2/20/2012 10:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
You don't need a video card that can push that resolution in 3d. Most people are not gamers and would use this kind of thing to work. I don't think there are any recent video cards that don't support that resolution and Intel IGP may even be able to handle it for 2D.


RE: Screen resolution
By retrospooty on 2/20/2012 10:23:14 AM , Rating: 3
"You're not looking at a 27" display from the same distance you look at a tablet, so that density will only be wasted"

True, but you gotta admit that laptops with 1366x768 really suck. Especially in a 15inch flavor. If Apple's high res push gets laptop makers to kill off 1366x768 res in anything larger than 12 inch screen I am a happy man and will thank Apple for it.


RE: Screen resolution
By kingmotley on 2/20/2012 10:33:23 AM , Rating: 1
Turn off AA/AF which is totally worthless for anything but gaming, and even then is very questionable. Now every video card made in the past 8 years, even the built in laptop ones can handle that in 2D, and most video cards can handle it in 3D made in the past 4-5 years.


RE: Screen resolution
By B3an on 2/20/2012 10:41:28 AM , Rating: 3
If someone can afford a 30" 2560x1600 they can afford the GPU's to run it.

I can also see the pixels on my 30" monitors and my eyesight isn't even perfect. Yet on a phone with around 960x540 it's harder to see the pixels even with the phone about 8 inches away - already closer than you'd normally hold a phone. As for 1280x720 phones you could probably have them 4" away.

The pair of 6970's i have cope with literally 99.99% of all PC games at 2560x1600 with 4x AA + 16x AF, which is why i haven't bothered getting some 7970's.

If i had a 4K monitor (4096x2160) then i'm sure a couple of 7970's would also handle 99.99% of all games. AMD showed some 7970's driving a 4K display and running a pretty impressive demo at that res too.

As for 3D, thats a useless gimmick so i dont know why you even mentioned it.


RE: Screen resolution
By invidious on 2/20/2012 12:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If someone can afford a 30" 2560x1600 they can afford the GPU's to run it.
QFT

Most people forget that there is always a demographic with an essentially unlimited budget. Someone with a $20,000 sound system doesn't make budget decisions the same way we do. For those of you not familiar with the dying breed of audiophiles, such systems are not nearly as uncommon as you might think, and that isn't even close to the highest end of home sound systems, I have seen people order two $120,000 systems.

Catering to such a market is obviously very profitable especially in the home theater business. So just because "we" can't afford it doesn't mean they shouldn't build it.


RE: Screen resolution
By TSS on 2/20/2012 7:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually don't rule out 3D yet. I've got an LG monitor with passive 3D, and one of things that seem off is the resolution, which gets halved vertically (playing at 1920x540..yay).

If you'd make a 4096x2160 monitor and cut the resolution horizontally however, running 3D at 2048x2160 should be so much better.

I agree it's crap for now and needs some work both as a technology and with support (2D interfaces in games are hella annoying when looking at a 3D world). But it'll only get more interesting with higher resolutions, not less.

I'll also agree that actually running a game at that resolution in 3D won't be much of a problem. Battlefield 3 still runs with ~40 FPS with everything on high on my 275 GTX. Games haven't exactly been taxing on hardware these past few years.


RE: Screen resolution
By someguy123 on 2/20/2012 11:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
The reason there isn't a move to higher densities is because there is very little demand, yet there would be a substantial increase to performance requirements to maintain those densities, even on a 2D desktop. Portable devices are often held near your face, so they benefit greatly, though I personally believe 2k is a bit overkill and a battery drain for a device ipad's size.

I think the people who're really confused about the situation have no sense of perspective and base everything on their hobby of building computers. You increase the amount of pixels to be drawn exponentially. Doubling current standards would mean bumping up pixel count from 2 million to 8 million. Even your 6970 crossfire struggles with that kind of density in games, much less John Q's low end or integrated. So you add quite a substantial amount of stress (something like a 4 monitor eyefinity setup vs 1080p) on desktop, additional software scaling or expensive internal scalers for video, likely an overall increase to response times with more pixels to account for when running voltage, and higher prices per panel, all for the sake of "increased workspace", or warding off pixel edges if you're sitting a bit close.

It's really not worth it at all. I'd much rather have advancements to panel quality overall, like OLED, rather than upping density, at least until hardware standards increase and/or HEVC.


RE: Screen resolution
By Etern205 on 2/20/2012 2:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
iPad 3 resolution: 2048x1536
2560x1600 is still a higher resolution than the ipad 3, so what are you complaining about?
If you're complain a 22 to 24 inch to have a high resolution, then the typical 1920x1080, then I will understand. Now I just
don't.


RE: Screen resolution
By fcx56 on 2/21/2012 4:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what he's saying


RE: Screen resolution
By Reclaimer77 on 2/20/2012 3:14:48 PM , Rating: 1
That would pretty much mean that in order for 3d gaming to not suck at the screens native resolution, you would always need top end video cards or even two card setups. There are other considerations as well, chiefly cost. You say you want a crazy res LCD, sure. Would you pay $3,000 for one, however?

Saying that because Apple can do it on a pad, then everyone needs to do it on LCD's four/five times the size, is a bit wonky on the logic. Retina displays can achieve a pixel density that's simply NOT cost effective for an LCD at 30"+"'s.


RE: Screen resolution
By Argon18 on 2/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: Screen resolution
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/20/2012 7:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well, considering another company MADE the screen....


RE: Screen resolution
By dark matter on 2/21/2012 5:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
Adding more pixels is hardly innovation or inventing anything is it. It's just refining something that already exists.


RE: Screen resolution
By simsony on 2/22/2012 3:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
Apple only shops around, they don't make any of these things. Only the software and product design. They probably don't have a quad core either for the same reason.. Samsung haven't done their quad core yet.


RE: Screen resolution
By protomech on 2/24/2012 4:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
The only person copying Samsung is Dilbert's PHB.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-02-23/


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














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