backtop


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 nafhan on 3/8/2012 4:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
A little common sense says to me, that the likely situation we have here is:
a) There's at least one benchmark where A5X's GPU really is 4X faster
b) Real world performance is probably not 4X faster in very many/any situations

Basically, they're probably telling the truth in a misleading way - as is standard practice in this kind of setting. We'll find out the real performance next week.


RE: Apple Picked the Wrong @!**@fight
By omnicronx on 3/8/2012 4:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
c)This is theoretical performance.

In terms of raw performance they probably are not being that misleading.

What is misleading is this is going to make users think that everything that relies on the GPU will perform 2x faster which probably won't be the case.

Then again, I can't think of ANY company that would not have sugar coated it in this way..

'We had to beef up the GPU to give you this new fancy display' just does not have the same ring to it ;)


By nafhan on 3/9/2012 10:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
A and C are usually the same. Unless they're absolutely lying about the "theoretical" performance, a hand picked benchmark is probably going to be very close to max theoretical performance.

This is why a lot of people hate benchmarks, and it's why if you DO look at benchmarks, you need to understand how it relates to what you plan to do with the device in question.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














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