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

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.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














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