Print 88 comment(s) - last by testerguy.. on Mar 15 at 10:46 AM

Benchmarks or GTFO!

Yesterday when Apple unveiled the new iPad, the crew from Cupertino took some time to brag about its new A5X processor in comparison to NVIDIA’s Tegra 3. Apple certainly isn't widely known for offering up benchmarks on its own, so we'll likely have to wait until iPads land in the hands of reviewers and geeks around the web.
Apple used the iPad unveiling to boast that the A5X chip inside the new iPad is two times faster than A5, and four times more powerful in graphics performance than the Tegra 3.
NVIDIA isn't buying those claims without proof. The graphics company wants to know how Apple came by that number. Ken Brown, a spokesman for NVIDIA, stated, "[It was] certainly flattering " for Apple to compare its newest chip to their part.
Brown continued, “We don’t have the benchmark information. We have to understand what the application was that was used. Was it one or a variety of applications? What drivers were used? There are so many issues to get into with benchmark.”
Anyone that follows tech knows benchmarks are often handpicked to favor one particular brand over another when it comes to claims such as these. So it should be interesting to see if the new iPad’s performance lives up to the claims.

Source: ZDNet

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Apple Picked the Wrong @!**@fight
By omnicronx on 3/8/2012 3:27:57 PM , Rating: 5
Double the theoretical performance, yet 4x more pixels to push.

In practice the iPad 3's probably won't be faster than the iPad 2, unless they are running at the same resolution. This especially holds true for games. (They could scale games from 1024x768, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having a Retina display)

Its an incremental update for the GPU, one which was required to support the Retina display.

You can't merely compare a GPU head on without taking some pretty obvious variables into account. Yes the iPad 3's GPU is much faster than its predecessor, but this performance increase will most likely not be realized by its users in most situations if at all... (i.e it certainly has the raw performance crown and by a fair margin, but its not like you are going to see FPS rates double in practice)

By testerguy on 3/9/2012 8:27:19 AM , Rating: 4
I agree with your comment, but the GPU claims made by Apple which are the topic of this article are resolution independent, and would not be disproved even if real life FPS was lower.

Real performance of the devices in question would be a different benchmark, and that would open up a whole host of questions like 'is a device which can hit 100 FPS at a resolution of 10 x 10 better than one which hits 60 at 2000 x 1000?'. In other words, FPS is just as much a flawed benchmark.

I suspect that developers can, if they want, develop games for the lower resolution of the iPad 2 and they will run at 2x the speed on the new iPad as they would on an iPad 2 (and just be upscaled - without extra processing). This would mean a non-retina game but means there is the option there to choose performance over resolution. A choice the slower GPU's in Android tablets don't afford.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki