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: Proof
By testerguy on 3/14/2012 5:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm... Math?

'Math' would give you a figure of 4x the number of pixels, since there are twice as many horizontal and vertical. Because number of pixels is horizontal res x vertical res, remember?

quote:
I can certainly come up with situations where rendering will be held back by CPU speed. Those situations might not be any more relevant than Apple's mysterious benchmark situation, but they exist.


Those situations wouldn't be relevant. The claim Apple made is about the GPU being 4x faster. Even if it was held up and slowed down by the processor in EVERY scenario, the claims about the GPU would still be true.


RE: Proof
By kyp275 on 3/15/2012 1:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
You realize you're just arguing semantics right?

right?

While Apple did not specifically claim a 4x real world performance improvement, it's pretty obvious that's what they're implying to their potential customers, and that's what irks most people who have issues with Apple's claim.


RE: Proof
By testerguy on 3/15/2012 10:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
For me to be arguing semantics, means you are too, if you're arguing against me.

Honestly, to me, they didn't imply 4x faster real world performance. To me, they said, OK, our screen is awesome, so we had to shove in a GPU which is 4x higher.

To dumb people, clearly this may be misleading, but all companies are guilty of the same 'white lies'.

And we're not average customers - we're analysing the claim at a technical level.

Finally - arguably, even removing the semantics they are still correct, since the GPU can render at the lower resolution and upscale. Which WOULD mean up to 4x faster real life performance.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














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